The applicant has approached court to seek an order in the following terms:
1. That the last WILL and TESTAMENT of the late ‘Mantahli Leabua Jonathan and its codicil be declared null and void and of no force or effect in so far as it relates to the residential plots situated at Happy Villa Maseru Urban Area originally described as plot 567 under the old Title Deed system and plot 12283 – 042 under the new lease system, in Maseru district.
2. That the respondents be directed to pay costs in the event of opposition of this application.
3. Granting applicant such further and/or alternative relief as this Honourable court may deem fit.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter between:
NKEKELETSE MAMOSA JONATHAN APPLICANT
‘MAMOSIUOA NTAHLI LEPHOLE 1ST RESPONDENT
(duly assisted by her husband)
THE EXECUTOR – THE ESTATE OF THE
LATE ‘MAKEMUELE ‘NEHENG NTSANE 2ND RESPONDENT
THIKHOI LYDIA JONATHAN 3RD RESPONDENT
‘MANTHOMENG MAMOSA MAJARA 4TH RESPONDENT
VUYELWA KOTELO 5TH RESPONDENT
SEOEHLA JONATHAN 6TH RESPONDENT
MOSA JONATHAN 7TH RESPONDENT
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT 8TH RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL 9TH RESPONDENT
CORAM : NOMNGCONGO J.
DATE OF HEARING : 5 May 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23 November 2017
 The applicant has approached court to seek an order in the following terms:
 In her founding affidavit she deposes that her son Seoehla was appointed her to estate of her late father in law Leabua Jonathan the former Prime Minister of Lesotho. She was to administer the estate on his behalf until he reached majority which maidentally he already has. The plot in respect if which she seeks the declaratory order is presumably part of that estate. Applicant says the plot identified as N0. 657 under the old Title Deed system and 12283 – 042 under the Deed system ( I think she is confusing the numbers 657 and 567) was not held by her mother in law “with my husband in the share ratios explained by her. She goes further to say that the site was contributed or donated to a company, Rakolo Investment (Pty) Ltd by his late father-in-law (par. 23 of the founding affidavit)” She repeated this assertion in the next paragraph of the affidavit. In her own assertion, therefore the site belonged to a company which she has not cited in this application. She herself does not in any way lay claim to it and yet she seeks a declaratory order in respect of it.
 Now, it is trite that the relief is not available to a litigant who does not have an interest in the subject matter of the decision. It was held thus in Adhro Investment Co. Ltd V Minister of Interior and Others 1961 (3) SA 283 (T) that
“…Some tangible and justifiable advantage in relation to the applicant’s position, with reference to an existing, future or contingent legal right or obligation must appears to flow from the grant of the declaratory
 The applicant in casu has failed to establish that she has any right to the plot in question and even if I were to give the order it would be of mere academic interest as she makes no claim to the plot.
 The application is dismissed with costs
For Plaintiff : Mr Teele
For Respondent: Ms Makau
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