In the matter between:
and
THE BOARD-MASERU CLUB 1st Respondent
MASERU CLUB 2nd Respondent
VODACOM LESOTHO (PTY) LTD 3rd Respondent
Judgment
Delivered by the Hon. Mrs Justice A. M. Hlajoane on 17th December, 2009.
This matter came before me on the 16th December, 2009 after all the necessary affidavits had been filed. It would be necessary to mention at this stage that only the 3rd Respondent filed his intention to oppose and the opposing affidavit.
The case is about the Applicant who claimed to have booked the football field (fore grounds) and the toilets at Maseru Club for a business venture which he called “Happy Christmas Jumping Castle Playing Games” for small children. The bookings were purportedly made on the 1st October, 2009 by paying a deposit and being issued with a receipt. A form detailing conditions for users of the premises was filled and signed accordingly. Such receipt and form were attached to the founding papers and marked accordingly.
Applicant stated in his papers that when on the 6th November, 2009, paid the balance still owing, he was informed by the 1st Respondent that there was a double booking for the 19th December, 2009 as it appeared the 3rd Respondent had also been given the same venue at the same time.
The Applicant on his papers explained what he understood to be the procedure for making bookings with 2nd Respondent. That one would make his bookings for a specific date which would be confirmed and diarized accordingly by 1st Respondent. He would later pay a deposit and be issued with a receipt and then pay the balance before the event. He was furnished with a form detailing conditions for users of 2nd Respondent’s foregrounds which was duly filled and signed accordingly.
There were some points in limine raised by the 3rd Respondent which were however not fully ventilated due to the urgency of this matter. As shown earlier on that 1st and 2nd Respondents chose not to file any papers, the court made an order calling upon the directors of Maseru Club to come and explain to the Court about the issue of double booking by the Applicant and the 3rd Respondent. The matter was postponed to the next day at 9.00 a.m.
When the Court next resumed, one Mr Boniface Mokalanyane appeared for the 3rd Respondent. His evidence was briefly that Maseru Club has two places to accommodate two events at the same time. That parties can choose the place they would want to go to. But he could not remember if when the two parties before Court made their bookings were told to choose where they want to go to.
Mr Mokalanyane further showed that 3rd Respondent made its booking during September, 2009 which obviously was before the Applicant made his bookings on the 1st October, 2009.
According to the Director of Maseru Club, the 3rd Respondent was their regular customer as he had made bookings with them for three consecutive years. He explained that both modes of making bookings were acceptable, being that of filling in a form or a verbal booking. Also that the two places at Maseru Club are quite separate as there is a hedge between them and that there is a separate entrance for each one of those venues.
The Director further explained that to resolve the problems of double bookings they had called together both parties involved to come and try to resolve the problem but to no avail.
I had to give an ex temporae ruling due to the urgency of the matter, dismissing the application as 1st Respondent supported the 3rd Respondent in that they had made their booking before the Applicant approached them. On the question of costs I have ordered that costs must not be born out by the Applicant and to be paid out to both the 3rd Respondent and the Applicant.
My decision was based on the fact that the Applicant ought to have dealt with the 1st and the 2nd Respondents on the issue of double booking and not the 3rd Respondent who only became an interested party. Going for the 3rd Respondent must be viewed as barking at the wrong tree.
M. HLAJOANE
JUDGE
For Applicant: Mr Nthontho
For 3rd Respondents: Mr Loubser
