CIV/APN/54/2005

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter between:

KHAUHELO
RADITAPOLE APPLICANT

And

THE
NATIONAL EXECUTIVE 1st RESPONDENT

COMMITTEE
OF THE B.C.P.

BASUTOLAND
CONGRESS PARTY 2nd RESPONDENT

LAWRENCE
MBULI 3rd RESPONDENT

LERATA
LERATA 4th RESPONDENT

RALIOTLO
PHAKISI 5th RESPONDENT

MONYANE
ROTO 6th RESPONDENT

LIRA ADAM
7th RESPONDENT

MAHOLELA
MANDORO 8th RESPONDENT

PEO
MOEJANE 9th RESPONDENT

MARTIN
THAANYANE 10th RESPONDENT

KHOTSANG
MOSHOESHOE 11th RESPONDENT

KHECHANE
SEKOTO 12th RESPONDENT

HAPE
TSAKATSI 13th RESPONDENT

MOLAPO
QHOBELA 14th RESPONDENT

DEPUTY-SHERIFF
(L.LIPHOLO) 15th RESPONDENT

REGISTRAR,
HIGH COURT 16th RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Honourable Mr Justice T. Nomngcongo On the 26th March 2007

In this
application, applicant prays that a writ of execution issued on the
8th November 2004 against her be set aside because it
is not in
compliance with the judgment in CIV/APN/80/01. The writ makes her
liable jointly and severally whereas, she complains,
the judgment
made her liable jointly only. The writ is annexed and it is what the
applicant say it is -joint and several. To that
deponent for first
and second respondents answer that, that is not a writ issued by its
attorneys, but simply a draft, served by
a deputy sheriff other than
one known to its said attorneys. One wonders how a so called draft
from the respondents' attorneys
got served on the applicant and what
the applicant was supposed to do with it.

The net
effect of this is that it is not denied that the writ was at variance
with the judgment.

The
respondent raised a point in limine that Mr Ntlhoki had at some point
acted for some of the parties in the matter that gave
rise to the
writ and in acting for the applicant now he was in breach of
confidentiality. That was denied by the applicant in reply.
Mr.
Mahlakeng addressed me briefly on this point. I do not find it

2

necessary
to dwell on this as he has put himself in the invidious position of a
respondent whose denials go unchallenged and therefore
must be
accepted. I find myself having to accept the applicant's unchallenged
denials in this regard, (see PLASCON-EVANS PAINTS
V VAN RIEBEBECK
PAINTS 1984 (3) SA 623.

The
application is granted with costs.

T.NOMNGCONGO

JUDGE

For
Applicant : Mr. Mdluli

For
Respondent: Mr Mosito

3