CIV/APN/509/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter between:
SELLO MOLATI Applicant
and
MARTIN SELITONGWE 1st Respondent
SELETE MOLETE 2nd Respondent
Ruling on Points in Limine
Delivered by the Hon. Mrs Justice A. M. Hlajoane on 1st August 2007
This is an Application for contempt of Court alleged to have been committed by the Respondents by failing to obey certain Court orders granted by this Court in CIV/APN/176/09 Sello Molati vs Thabang Letela and 7 Others and CIV/APN/213/06 Sello Molati vs Thabang Letela and World Vision Lesotho.
2
The said Court orders were attached to the founding affidavit by the Applicant in this matter. Because both orders were fairly short, I am going to reproduce them in this ruling. CIV/APN/176/2006
Sello Molati v Thabang Letela & 7 Others
First Respondent be and is hereby restrained from unlawfully interfering with applicant's election to the Executive Committee of the Kota Centre of the Kota Area Development Project.
An inauguration of the working committee of the Kota Area Development Project be and is hereby stayed."
CIV/APN/213/2006
Sello Molati v Thabang Letela & World Vision Lesotho
The first Respondent be and is hereby restrained forthwith from interfering with the activities of the current Kota Working
Committee of Kota Area Development Programme for the term of 2003 — 2006.
The first Respondent be and is hereby ordered to allow the current Kota working committee for the term of 2003 — 2006 to continue with its daily activities of Kota Area Development Programme."
It is therefore common cause that this Court indeed did grant final Court orders in both CIV/APN/176/06 and CIV/APN/213/06 on
5th June, 2006 and 17th October, 2006 respectively. What becomes common cause also is the fact that in both orders first Respondent is one Thabang Letela.
3
Respondents in their heads of arguments and in their answering papers have argued that in fact the two Court orders they are alleged to have defied have not restrained World Vision Lesotho from interfering with Kota Area Activities through its officers. They have restrained one Thabang Letela from interfering.
In CIV/APN/176/06 World Vision Lesotho was the 8th Respondent whilst in CIV/APN/213/06 World Vision Lesotho
was the second Respondent. In both those Court orders it was the first Respondent only who was restrained from interfering not other
Respondents. The orders were both very specific in showing whom they were intended to restrain. Parties were agreed that issues for determination were:
Whether or not Respondents have locus standi to be sued.
Whether the Respondents were as a matter of fact guilty of contempt of Court in the particular circumstances of this Application.
Whether Applicant has made out a case or satisfied requirements for contempt of Court. Locus Standi
The right in which the Defendant/Respondent is sued must be clearly indicated,
"Beck's Theory and Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions 5 Editions p.46. As Plaintiff has to make
4
necessary averments to show that Defendant has locus standi, so must the Applicant to the Respondent in Application proceedings.
In Northern Natal Auctioneers (Pty) Ltd v Rautenbach 1961
(2) S.A 585 cited by the Respondents, a Summons in a Provisional Sentence action on a notarial bond had described the Defendant as "Judith Margaretha Rautenbach" when the bond contained a fuller description of her as being a married woman married out of Community of Property" and even giving out the number and year of such type of marriage as 241/1947.
The Court there held that the description of the Defendant in the summons read with that contained in the Notarial Bond was not sufficient to indicate that the marital power had been excluded. The Court there granted a postponement to allow for necessary amendment.
I have shown earlier on in this ruling that the fact that final orders were granted was not disputed. Applicant submitted that the orders were granted and that Respondents received them. He went further to say Respondents disobeyed the orders wilfully hence the submission that Applicant has met requirements to establish contempt of such orders.
5
It would seem that the three issues for determination are more or less intertwined and as such it would not be that simple discussing one without necessarily touching on the other or others.
As indicated earlier on in this ruling, the two Court orders in issue restrained one Thabang Letela. But the Respondents in this
Application are Martin Selitongwe and Selete Molete. No connection has been established between Thabang Letela and the Respondents in this matter. The two Court orders did not even restrain World Vision Lesotho for whom the present Respondents are officers of World Vision International Lesotho.
For one to be held in contempt, the order must have been granted against him. He must have been made aware of such an order granted against him or been served with such an order. He would then be in contempt if after such 'knowledge', he chooses to disobey or neglect such an order.
So that the Applicant has failed to establish that the Respondents had locus standi to be sued for contempt under the circumstances of this case. It would still be of no help to have shown them or made them aware of such orders as they were not granted against
6
them. They could therefore not be said to have disobeyed orders not granted against them.
The Applicant has even failed to establish whether Respondents have in fact stepped into the shoes of the 1st Respondent in both
CIV/APN/176/2006 and CIV/APN/213/2006 and what precisely Respondents have done that is contrary to the Court orders. Applicant has thus failed to allege relevant facts for the granting of the order for contempt.
He has not met any of the requirements for an order of contempt. The application for contempt is thus dismissed with costs.
M. HLAJOANE
JUDGE
For Applicant: Mr Metsing
For Respondents: Mr Thabane
