HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
PITSO 1st APPLICANT
PITSO 2nd APPLICANT
MIRROR NEWSPAPERS 3rd APPLICANT
EDITOR (THE MIRROR NEWSPAPER) 4th APPLICANT
CASWELL 5th APPLICANT
MOEKETSE MALEBO 1st DEFENDANT
MESSENGER OF COURT 2nd DEFENDANT
by the Honourable Mr Justice T. Nomngcongo on the 21st February. 2006
an application wherein the second applicant seeks an order for the
restoration to herself of property that was attached
possession by the deputy sheriff- the second respondent herein
pursuant to a judgment of this court against the third to
respondents. She is, according to the founding affidavit the
proprietor of the third applicant. She claims that she is
authorized by the other applicants to bring these proceedings. Such
authority is challenged by the respondents.
applicant says in her founding affidavit that the property attached
belongs to the first applicant who left it in her custody
went to Botswana. Apart from that, the applicant does not say why it
is she rather than the owner who seeks relief.
authority of a litigant to bring legal proceedings is challenged, the
simple response to the challenge is to produce that
authority and in
the case of a fictitious person a resolution by the governing body of
present case the applicant is the proprietor of the 3rd applicant and
therefore presumably also the employer of the 4th applicant.
to see why it was impossible to secure a resolution from her own
newspaper and a supporting affidavit from her own employee.
appears to share the same surname as the lst applicant. She does not
say either why she is unable to make a supporting affidavit.
of a thing is generally the person who has a vested interest in a
thing such as will entitle him to bring a vindicatory
respect of such a thing. Exceptions may occur such as a bona fide
possessor who has dispoiled.
Beck's Theory and Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions –
Isaacs 5th Edition p. 2.
present case it is claimed there is an owner who lives in Botswane -
a day's journey from seat of this court. She does not
sue on her own
behalf but is represented by someone else. That someone else (the 2nd
applicant) is not claiming that he has been
despoiled. In my view, in
the circumstances he has no locus standi in judicio.
disposes of this application and I do not find it necessary to
consider the other arguments advanced on behalf of both parties.
application is dismissed with costs.
: For Applicant
Ntlhoki : For Respondent
African Law (AfricanLII)
Ghana Law (GhaLII)
Laws of South Africa (Legislation)
Lesotho Law (LesLII)
Liberian Law (LiberLII)
Malawian Law (MalawiLII)
Namibian Law (NamibLII)
Nigerian Law (NigeriaLII)
Sierra Leone Law (SierraLII)
South African Law (SAFLII)
Seychelles Law (SeyLII)
Swaziland Law (SwaziLII)
Tanzania Law (TanzLII)
Ugandan Law (ULII)
Zambian Law (ZamLII)
Zimbabwean Law (ZimLII)
Commonwealth Countries' Law
LII of India
United States Law