In the matter between:
SEFORA TSUMANE 1st
THE REGISTRAR OF HIGH
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY 3rd
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 4th
This is the case where the
Plaintiff is claiming for payment in the amount of M60,000.00, being
the money that he paid for an Isuzu
van that he bought at the Public
Auction. The money was paid to the 1st
Defendant as the Deputy Sheriff of this Court.
According to the return of sale
of the vehicle, Exhibit D, the vehicle was sold at a public
auction in terms of the judgment
handed in CIV/T/324/2006.
The vehicle was attached and sold in satisfaction of the judgment
between the 3rd
Defendant as the Plaintiff and one Sebopeho Mohapi.
It was the Plaintiffs case
that on or about the 20th
December, 2007 the same vehicle was repossessed by Standard Lesotho
Bank Limited in CIV/APN/595/2007,
the Bank being the rightful owner of the vehicle under the Hire
Purchase Agreement with Sebopeho Mohapi. The order for repossession
has not been attached to the papers neither did the Plaintiff produce
it in his evidence.
According to the Plaintiff, the
Defendant did not before the sale of the vehicle to him (Plaintiff)
inform him that the Standard Bank of Lesotho Limited had a
title to the vehicle. The 1st
Defendant instead represented to the Plaintiff that she was indeed
entitled and authorized to sell the vehicle in question.
The Plaintiff in his evidence
went further to show that because the vehicle was not in a running
order he had to hire a Two truck
to remove it from where he bought it
to Supreme Panel Beaters for repairs. He even produced some receipts
for monies he paid for
such repairs. The total amount paid came to
M8580.89. He therefore claimed for the total amount of M68,580.89
for the vehicle.
It was the Plaintiffs case
that the 2nd
Defendant was liable by virtue of the fact that the 1st
Defendant was acting in her official capacity in selling the vehicle
to him, and that the 2nd
Defendant in her official capacity was the responsible person having
authority and control over the Deputy Sheriff of this Court.
the grounds of vicarious liability the 2nd
Defendant was liable to the Plaintiff as the 1st
Defendant was acting within the scope and duty of her official
appointment by or on the official appointment and authority of the
That the 3rd
Defendant also liable to the Plaintiff as the sale continued on the
Defendants alternatively its Attorneys instance, despite being
informed of the Standard Banks right and title to the vehicle.
Plaintiff submitted that the 3rd
Defendant was unlawfully and unfairly enriched at the expense of the
Bank, who after exercising their right to repossession, such
and / or injury was transferred to the Plaintiff. That despite the
Banks communication of the facts to the 3rd
Defendant and for its Attorneys insisted that the 1st
Defendant proceed with the sale in execution, Plaintiff therefore
said, as a result the 3rd
Defendant is equally jointly and severally liable as the sale
occurred at its insistence and demand issued by its Attorney acting
on its instructions.
Though the Defendants were never
requested to plead, the matter was however set down for hearing.
Plaintiff prayed for default
judgment against the 2nd
and fourth Defendants after leading his evidence.
The Court came to the conclusion
that Plaintiff never attached to his papers the order for the
repossession of the vehicle. Also
that Sebopeho Mohapi from whom the
vehicle was seized as a judgment debtor has not been joined as one of
the parties in these proceedings.
The Court was concerned about a
judgment being granted against the Registrar and the Attorney-General
for the wrongs done by the
Deputy Sheriffs. A Deputy Sheriff though
appointed by the Registrar is not a government employee but an
That is why the law required of him to have
paid security to be fixed by the Registrar as Sheriff. The Security
would take care
of mistakes committed by a particular Deputy Sheriff.
Matters of this nature should be taken as a wake up call for finding
of making all Deputy Sheriffs deposit some amounts with the
Bank for Security.
I therefore granted absolution
from the instance.
For Plaintiff: Mr De Beers
For Defendant: Mr Matooane
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