CIV/APN/191/99

CIV/APN/270/99

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter between:-

AFRICAN
OXYGEN LIMITED APPLICANT

AND

S T M
MARKETING AND AGENCIES LIMITED 1ST RESPONDENT

MR SELAI
MOKETE 2ND RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Honourable Mrs Justice K. J. Guni on the 7th day of April,
2000.

By
consent, these two applications, were heard together. The facts in
both applications are exactly the same, because the same application
was resubmitted for the reasons given by the applicant. The legal
issues raised, apply to and must be determined in the light of those
facts.

The
applicant, as shown in paragraph 2 of the Founding Affidavit, is a
South African Company. It is incorporated in the RSA, in accordance
with the company law of that country. The applicant's registered
office address is

2

given as
20 Maarsdorp Street, Old Industrial Area, Bloemfontein, OFS, RSA.

The
applicant carries on the business of supply, sale and distribution of
Liquified Petroleum Gas (hereinafter referred to as LPG) and related
services. It is claimed, that the applicant has obtained, from the
Ministry of Trade and Industry here in Lesotho, authority to trade as
a wholesaler. To support this claim a copy of an expired Trader's
Licence Certificate annexure "GP6" is attached to the
replying affidavit.

The
respondent, as shown at paragraph 9 of answering affidavit, is STM
Marketing and Agencies (Pty) Limited. It is a company registered in
terms of the Law of Lesotho. It carries on, by means of a specialised
licence, the business of a distributor and wholesaler of ELF
liquified petroleum gas. ELFgas is distributed in Southern Africa by
ELFgas Southern Africa (PTY) Limited of 13th Floor, Medlife Centre,
Coen Steydtler Avenue, Cape Town in RSA. The respondent has a
distributorship and dealership agreement with this ELFgas Southern
Africa (Pty) Ltd.

These two
parties are competitors in the market place for the sale of LPG.
Applicant claims to hold the major share of the market in Lesotho for
the sale and distribution of LPG. There are no grounds laid nor
reason given for this claim. Although the applicant has no branch
office or agency here in Lesotho, applicant claims to have a
distribution network stretching across the entire country. There is
no mention of what the applicant's network of distribution is made of
e,g is it shops, depots, wholesales, etc????? The applicant has

3

come to
court to knip in the bud, the competition against it in the market
here in Maseru. I say knip in the bud the competition because STM
Marketing and Agencies (PTY) Limited started operations only in March
1999. Almost immediately, after the commencement of business by
respondent the applicant came to court and obtained ex-parte orders
restraining respondent from receiving (in exchange of its own full
gas cylinders) any of the gas cylinders of the description given in
the ex-parte order.

According
to the applicant, there are numerous distributors of LPG in this
country, but there are five main ones, including these two parties
before court. The applicant has given full description of how the
market in Lesotho is supplied with LPG contained in gas cylinders.

When a
customer purchases LPG from any supplier or distributor for the first
time, the customer pays a deposit plus sales tax in respect of the
gas cylinder. That same cylinder nevertheless, always remains the
property of that particular supplier - from whom the customer obtains
it. The customer may then from time to time have that gas cylinder
exchanged for another one which is filled with gas from any supplier.
The customer is not compelled to return or to patronise the first
supplier from whom the customer obtained that gas cylinder for future
and further purchases of gas (I suppose that is, to certain extent,
the respect of the customers' right of the freedom of choice. This
applicant does not share this sentiment as appears in the prayers
made in these applications and ex-parte orders obtained). The
applicant, went on to explain the practice presumably from its
experience.

4

It is
said that, suppliers seldom refill their own empty gas cylinder
presented for the purchase of gas by the customer. It is unlawful to
fill or refill the gas cylinders of other suppliers. Section 13(2)
Legal Notice No.90 of 1997. For the efficient running of that kind of
business (i.e distribution and sale of gas) the suppliers agreed
amongst themselves and established that trade custom practice of
exchange of cylinders. The empty cylinder may be exchanged for the
full one. As a result all suppliers are free to exchange cylinders of
any and all trade marks of any and all other suppliers. Each supplier
regains possession of its gas cylinder through an established trade
custom practice of exchange of cylinders. According to the applicant
this agreed trade custom practice, has been going on for some time.
Whenever any supplier is in possession of gas cylinders belonging to
another supplier, it will return those cylinders to that supplier and
receive in exchange its own cylinders which are in the possession of
that other supplier. In any cylinders exchange exercise, if the
numbers of cylinders do not match, the recipient of the greater
number will pay that standard deposit on the extra numbers of
cylinders received.

Respondent
agrees with the applicant completely on this description of the trade
practice. The respondent has gone further by showing this court, that
both parties are in fact, active participants in that trade custom
practice. Respondent has even given specific dates when the trade
custom practice of exchange of cylinders took place between the
applicant and respondent.

Applicant
alleges that there are unscrupulous distributors who take advantage
of its own cylinder support, by using applicant's cylinders to supply
LPG

5

supplied
by this applicant's competitors. It is claimed, without indicating by
numbers or proving the same in any way, that this applicant, has the
most cylinders in the field. It is further alleged, that the
respondent makes use of the applicants cylinders to fill and sell
their gas. There has been so far no evidence to support this
allegation. Should a sufficient number of competitors (imagined) of
this applicant make use of the applicant's cylinders to sell their
LPG, damage to the applicant (imagined) would be immeasurable.

The
applicant approached this court on an urgent basis and by ex-parte
application alleging that the respondent unlawfully fills or refills
applicants own gas cylinders and unlawfully competes with this
applicant. It was further alleged, that the proof of the alleged
unlawful filling by respondent of the applicant's gas cylinders came
into applicant's possession during second half of April 1999.
Applicant took steps to protect its rights on 8/5/99 by obtaining
those ex-parte orders restraining the respondent from receiving in
the normal way the gas cylinders described in those ex-parte orders.

The
applicant does not say, how and where he obtained the proof of the
alleged unlawful activities of the respondent, during half of April
1999. Annexures 3 and 4 attached to the founding affidavit are sworn
statements made by two gentlemen described as directors and
investigators employed by Private Detective Services. The impression
made is that the applicant must have observed with its own "private
eyes" the alleged unlawful filling of its cylinders by
respondent. Those private eyes claim to have been at the business
premises of the respondent on the 30th and the 31st March 1999.

6

They had
specific instruction to determine whether the respondent is dealing
in Afrox LPG cylinders.

What did
they do?

1. They
   bought gas at the respondent's business - handed-in the Afrox empty
   gas cylinders and received in exchange thereof full cylinders and in
   a normal way, they paid only for the contents.

   
   

2. The
   full cylinders, received by those private detectives, should have
   been those of the respondent. In accordance with the trade practice
   only ELF gas cylinders - are distributed by the respondent. The
   applicant's private eyes claim that, it was Afrox full gas cylinders
   which was placed by a black gas attendant of the respondent company,
   into their motor vehicle.

   
   

The two
statements further indicate that a video recording was made prior,
during and after the transaction. This video recording, was to be
produced before the court, perhaps at the hearing of the confirmation
of the ex-parte orders obtained by the applicant. There was no such
production of any video tapes

Respondent
denies that the two detectives were given by an attendant at the
respondent's business premises a full Afrox gas cylinder.

7

Respondent
again denies that the video recording was done at its premises and
therefore such video recording was irrelevant. Perhaps that is why
applicant decided after all not to produce the said video tapes.

A number
of points in limine have been raised by respondent.

LOCUS
STANDI

A first
point in limine raised on behalf of the respondent is with regard to
the applicant's claim of right to use and therefore protect for its
exclusive use only, the following brand names, Mobile, Engen, Caltex,
Homegas, Sonap/Sonarep, Trek and Socony. Mr Parker for applicant, in
his reply does not help applicant's case at all. He merely claims
that applicant bought those business but, does not bother to attach
any proof of the ownership as claimed by him. Curiously enough, he
demands that respondent must produce prove of the denial that
applicant does not own those business and therefore has no authority
to claim protection for the applicant's exclusive use of those brand
names. The allegation that this applicant own those brand names for
its exclusive use, must be proved by the applicant. He who alleges
must prove. Vulcan Rubber Works (Pty) Ltd vs SAR and H 1958 (3) SA
285 (A).

The copy
of an expired Trader's Licence Certificate attached to the replying
affidavit, does not make any mention of those brand names as being
for the exclusive use of this applicant. There is no mention at all
of what the wholesaler so licenced trades in. There is no connection
between the

8

wholesale
trader's licence issued, by the Ministry of Trade and Industry of
Lesotho Government, to this applicant and its claim of ownership of
Mobile, Engen, Caltex, Homegas etc, etc. The applicant has failed to
prove that it owns those brand names.

DEFECTIVE
PROCESS

Another
point in limine raised concerns the irregularity of the Notice of
Application in CIV/APN/270/99 filed on behalf of the applicant
company. This application is not signed as required by the rules of
this court. High Court Rules, Legal Notice No.9 of 1980 - [Rule
18(6)]. This rules reads as follows:-

"18(6) The summons shall be signed by the Registrar and the
plaintiff's attorney or plaintiff personally and must disclose the
attorney's address or plaintiff's address which must be within, five
kilometres from the office of the Registrar at which he will accept
service of all documents." [My underlining].

There
are, however, names and addresses of attorneys of South Africa and of
Lesotho. My observation is that the attorneys of this applicant, are
De Buys Human, because it is clearly stated so on the papers.

9

Harley
and Morris appear to be only a local address which must be within
five kilometres from the office of the Registrar at which the party
will accept service of all documents. The applicant's attorney is
clearly stated as De Buys Human. In terms of Rule 18 (6) he should be
the one who signed the application. He seemed to have had a problem
of not having been admitted to practice as an attorney and to
practice as such in the courts of Lesotho and of having no office
here in Lesotho. It is stated nowhere in these papers that Harley and
Morris are the attorneys of this applicant. Harley and Morris did not
sign and they were not entitled to do so by the rules.

Rule 18
(6) must be read with rule 13 (1) High Court Rules (Legal Notice No.9
of 1980). The interpretation of "Action" is clearly shown
as including application: that being so the application must be
signed by the party or its attorney. As shown at page 353 B, signing
of Notice of Motion, in Herbstein and Van Winsen. The CIVIL PRACTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FOURTH EDITION, the notice must
be signed by an attorney issuing it whether the application is
ex-parte or otherwise. The failure to sign this application by the
attorneys issuing it created an irregularity. It is not a proper
process to be before this court. On this point respondent must
succeed. This, however, does not end this matter, because applicant
resubmitted the same application which is heard together with the
application in question.

10

NON-DISCLOSURE

Respondent
has shown in the answering affidavit deposed to by Mr Selai
Mokete,that on 19th March 1999,25th March 1999 and on the 20th April
1999, the trade customary exchange of cylinders did take place
between these two parties. These averments, by Mr Selai Mokete are
admitted by Mr Giles William Parker who deposed to both founding and
replying affidavit on behalf of the applicant. It is very material
that the very same deponed omitted to mention that these two parties
participate fully in that trade customary exchange of cylinders. He
further omitted to mention in the founding affidavit for the
consideration of the court prior to the making of an ex-parte order
that as recently as 20th April 1999 - only about (8) eight days prior
to the launching of the first application, the applicant collected
from the respondent's business premises three hundred and twenty
eight (328) cylinders in accordance with that trade practice
established amongst the suppliers such as these two parties. (As
shown in annexure STM4 attached to the Answering Affidavit).

In motion
proceedings, particularly when bringing an ex-parte application, in
which relief is claimed against another party, the applicant must
make full disclosure of all material and relevant facts, that might
affect the granting or otherwise of an order ex-parte. Herbstein and
Van Winsen The civil Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa,
Fourth Edition page 367.

Applicant
alluded to the trade custom practice of exchange of cylinders
generally. There was a need to give the court the true and proper
attitude of

11

the
respondent as regards the trade custom practice of exchange of
cylinders, more particularly because applicant had given this court a
distinct (though erroneous and false) impression that the applicant
is not able to regain possession of its own empty gas cylinders which
are in the possession of this respondent, who, as alleged, fills them
up with ELFGAS products for sale and distribution.

The
applicant did not disclose that they (applicant and respondent)
participate fully in the trade customary cylinder exchange. Had this
fact been mentioned, there would have been no court order made
compelling respondent to surrender to applicant any cylinders at all
as the owners of those cylinders are free to regain them by
participating in that trade customary exchange of cylinders whenever
they so wish and whereever they are found. Failure to disclose in
ex-parte application is very important and goes to the root of the
matter as shown in Herbstein and Van Winsen supra Judge Le Roux in
Schlesinger vs Schlesinger 1979 (4) SA 342 at page 349, emphasised
that importance of full disclosure of true facts. He went even
further; after examining the relevant authorities on this point, he
indicated that there is a clear duty on the applicant to disclose
material facts which might affect the granting of the ex-parte order
more particularly with regard to the respondent's attitude to the
request made by applicant before court.

It has
been established that suppression of true facts, is as bad as lying.
Therefore courts, in the judicious exercise of their discretion, are
entitled to discharge ex-parte orders obtained by applicant who
withheld true facts or

12

lied in
order to obtain such order. Schlesinger case cited above. Bank Orp
Ltd vs Ridla 1993 (4) SA 276.

The
applicant did not only withhold true facts which would have indicated
to this court clearly, the attitude of the respondent, but lied, that
the respondent fills applicant's cylinders with ELFgas which is
distributed by the respondent. Strangely enough applicant claimed
that it distributes ELFgas and obtained the court order which even
though respondent is ELFgas distributor it was restrained from
receiving ELFgas cylinders which are, in fact respondent's own
cylinders.

It was
not only the withholding of true facts, there were also some false
allegations. The applicant committed, in that way a double wrong
[adding insult to an injury]. The court is therefore entitled, to
discharge that rule nisi. Even if the applicant was to succeed on the
merits of the application on this point alone this application must
fail.

URGENCY

Another
point in limine, which has been raised by the respondent is that of
urgency. There was that trade custom practice of exchange of
cylinders by the suppliers in order that each supplier regains
possession of its cylinders. When ever the applicant wished to regain
possession of its cylinders from the respondent, the applicant can
and on three occasions actually did go to the business premises of
the respondent and collected its own cylinders. This

13

practice
of exchange of cylinders has been carried out amicably by these two
parties. While admitting that the exchanges of cylinders of 19th
March, 25th March and 20th April 1999 did take place, applicant does
not show the court in anyway, that on those three occasions of
exchange, there were difficulties which necessitated the rushing to
court urgently and by ex-parte application obtain an order to regain
those cylinders.

The
reasons given by the applicant for proceeding on an urgent
application are that the respondent is filling applicant's gas
cylinders with its own product and therefore making those cylinders
unavailable for that trade custom exchange of cylinders. This
allegation of filling applicant's cylinders with its ELFgas, is
denied by respondent. Applicant failed to prove the same. Even though
applicant claimed that it saw with its own "private eyes"
(the affidavits of the two private detectives are referred), that the
respondent has in its possession filled applicant's cylinders; No
proof of that allegation was produced before court. A promise to make
available to the court that video tapes - allegedly recorded by those
detectives at the respondent's business premises or elsewhere, was
never fulfilled. The respondent denied that there was any video
recording by those detectives at his business premises. If there were
video tapes, showing the refilling or filling of applicant's
cylinders it was not done by or at the respondent's premises. The
applicant decided not to produce the said video tape after all. There
may have been no video tape after all. The reasons for the
applicant's failure to prove those allegations that the respondent
was committing unlawful acts are best known to this applicant only.
They were not put before this court. The lack of scruples seems to

14

characterise
the applicant. Its main objective was to obtain that undeserved Rule
Nisi. It is most unfortunate that the said Rule Nisi was obtained by
deception.

The
applicant, having seen with its private eyes, that there were its
cylinders at the respondent's premises, and that those cylinders were
filled and sealed, went to those premises on the 20th April 1999
prior to the launching of these applications and collected all its
cylinders in a normal trade exchange practice. As shown on annexure
STM4, they were all empty. The averments in the affidavits of the two
detectives, to the effect that on the 30th 31st March, 1999 they saw
filled and sealed applicant's cylinders at the respondent's premises,
must be incorrect. Respondent has denied that such unlawful acts of
filling other suppliers' cylinders are, committed by it. Even though
the affidavits by the two detectives were sworn to on the 3rd April
1999, the applicant could not state the exact date on which the
information, regarding the alleged unlawful acts committed by the
respondent, reached it. Could it be safely presumed that by the time
he reacted to that information, he had already on 20th April
collected those cylinders of applicant which were seen by those two
detectives? Their flabbier must have been so gusted when realising
that the cylinders which they thought were filled were in fact empty.

Did
applicant stop there and reconsider its steps whether or not there is
a need to proceed urgently and obtain ex-parte order? This is very
material because the fears expressed, and on the basis of which the
ex-parte order was to be sought had disappeared. To proceed in the
manner, this applicant did, in the

15

light of
these revelations, indicates bad faith.

This was
to harass and embarrass respondent because applicant could still
lawfully, obtain its own gas cylinders and did continuously manage to
repossess its own cylinders. Obtaining by deception undeserved
ex-parte order was merely to disrupt the business operations of the
respondent. In the court order obtained the gas cylinders the
respondent is ordered not to receive in the usual exchange from
customers, are those gas cylinders which belong to other suppliers
whom the applicant though claiming to own them failed to prove its
ownership. Applicant claimed to own ELFgas. ELFgas cylinders are part
and parcel of the respondent company. In other words, respondent was
being restrained from dealing with its own cylinders as this
applicant had included them in the ex-parte order restraining
applicant from receiving them from customers.

The
urgency in the matter must be borne by the facts in that matter. The
facts, of these applications show that any time the applicant could
regain, if it so wished, its gas cylinders. There was no need even to
come to court, let alone on urgent ex-parte applications. The
point-in-limine on urgency was well taken and must succeed. On this
point alone, when the lack of urgency was apparent to the applicant,
who seemed to have been motivated by overwhelming malice the Rule
Nisi must be discharged. It is abundantly clear, that there was in
fact, no merit in these applications.

MALA FIDE

16

Another
issue raised, and which I intend to deal with at length because it
has a great bearing on all other issues raised and the facts of both
applications is that of Mala fide.. The applicant came to court to
obtain by hook or crook, an order restraining the respondent finally
and permanently from competing in the market for sale, supply and
distribution of LPG. The Trade customary practice of cylinder
exchange amongst the supplier was elaborately explained by applicant
which shows that it knew its rights in that regard perfectly. In
order to obtain my sympathy, (and I did feel sympathetic towards the
applicant), lies were told. Deliberate and carefully calculated
omission were made. It is a lie that the respondent fills or refills
the applicant's cylinders with respondent's own LPG. It was a
deliberate and carefully calculated omission to fail to mention that
these two parties, participate fully, as often as anyone of them
feels the need to do so, in that trade customary exchange of their
cylinder. It was malicious to obtain by deception honerous and
prejudicial interim order without notice to the respondent, more
particularly, when recent exchanges had taken place and more
exchanges could take place anytime as applicant wanted. Its
detectives failed to determine that the respondent deals with Afrox
cylinders. Following their (false) report, Afrox empty cylinders were
in fact collected by applicant from the respondent. The applicant has
nevertheless come to court to restrain the respondent from competing
with it. The respondent is falsely accused of committing offences
when in fact applicant is the person committing those offences
alleged, falsely, against the respondent. The applicant has no branch
offices and/or agencies so labelled here in Lesotho. Applicant makes
use of distribution network. There is no mention as I have indicated
earlier on of what this

17

distribution
network consists of e.g. shop, depots, wholesales etc. The respondent
has alleged and produced a photograph to substantiate the allegation,
that the unlawful acts of filling or refilling of cylinders belonging
to another wholesaler, without that other wholesaler's consent, are
committed by this applicant. On the 25th May 1999 it should be noted
that by this date, the applicant had in its possession the ex-parte
court order obtained on 8th May 1999. An observation was made by and
photographs taken by the deponent of the answering affidavit, of the
refilling or filling of the ELFgas cylinder owned by the respondent
at the applicant's depot at Teyateyaneng here in Lesotho. The
applicant does not deny that the unlawful conduct photographed by the
respondent at that Teyateyaneng Depot did take place. The denial
relates to the name used, not the unlawful act. It is argued that the
applicant uses a distribution network. That refilling of ELFgas
cylinder by the applicant's LPG which is not denied, is for the
benefit of the applicant. It is being done in the furtherance of the
applicant's own business that of distributing and selling of its LPG.
It is not claimed that applicant's distributor was refilling ELFgas
cylinder with ELFgas LPG. Applicant actually uses these distribution
network. If unlawful acts are committed by applicant's distributors,
the liability for such acts must go to the supplier - applicant
herein. The allegation that those distributors are refilling
respondent's gas cylinders against applicant's policy, does not help
this applicant's case. It is the applicant's duty to enforce its
policy. The failure to enforce its own policy is still its
responsibility and must be visited with liability for failing in its
obligations to respect the law. Its distribution network is
distributing on its behalf and for the furtherance of its business.

18

When it
comes to yet another brach of the law, that is, the unlawful removal
from Lesotho of one wholesaler's cylinders by another competing
wholesaler, the applicant who came to court and falsely accused the
respondent of these unlawful acts, is the culprit. The unlawful
removal from this Kingdom, of the respondent's cylinders, by this
applicant, makes such cylinders unavailable for the respondent to
repossess in the normal exchange of cylinders exercise. There is a
well established principle, that a party who comes to court must come
with clean hands. The applicant came to court with very dirty hands.
No court order should have been put in such dirty hands. The law and
the court in these application were being manipulated to afford
protection to applicant who has no respect for the same. It was after
obtaining the court orders granted on 8/5/99, and on 12th July 1999,
that the applicant was now caught red handed breaking the law by the
respondent. It was on the 25th May 1999 when the filling of ELFgas
cylinder was photographed at one of the applicant's distributor
networks. On the 30th June the truck load of ELFgas cylinders was
observed and photographed at the Maseru border post crossing into
south Africa against the specific statutory provision prohibiting
such removal. Section 6(1) Legal Notice No. 93 of 1997 [Liquified
Petroleum Gas (Trade and Handling) Regulations]. Whether or not the
police were alerted is immaterial. The respondent's failure to report
to police does not afford any good defence for applicant's unlawful
acts. The respondent may have reported. The failure by the police to
make arrest could be due to various reasons including corruption.
Venturing into speculation why the applicant gets away with this
criminal acts will not serve any useful purpose. There are serial
murderers and rapists. When they are eventually caught they are
brought to book. The truck

19

which is
loaded with the respondent's cylinders, in Annexure 'B' is that of
the applicant. In the replying affidavit, Mr. Parker does not explain
the reason for the removal of the respondent's cylinders. The truck
is at the Maseru bridge between Lesotho and South Africa. That border
post at Maseru, between South Africa and the Kingdom of Lesotho is a
notorious place. The fact is the common knowledge which this court is
entitled to take the judicial notice of. The applicant's attitude
regarding the respect for the law, and its manipulation of courts,
are clear indicators that it is very contemptuous of both. While in
the process of committing offences the law and courts were used to
tie the hands of law abiding citizens who are falsely being accused
of committing those crimes. The revelations, made on the return date
of the Rule Nisi issued, indicated without a doubt, the bad faith
with which this applicant acted. This applicant, should clean its
hands by returning those cylinders which it unlawfully removed from
this kingdom into Republic of South Africa. I strongly recommend to
the licencing authority to ensure that the applicant is controlled to
operate its business in terms of the laws of this Kingdom. The
arrogance with which this applicant trample all over the laws of this
country, demands his total exclusion from the continued operations of
that business here in Lesotho.

This
judgment and the photographs taken by the respondent and produced
before this court must be placed before the Department of the
Ministry of Trade and Industry which licenced this applicant company
to operate its wholesaler business here in Lesotho. Cancellation of
the applicant's licence must be seriously considered. The laws of
this Kingdom must be respected by all who

20

conduct
their businesses on this land. Deliberate breaking of our laws by
this applicant warrants cancellation and or denial of issue of
licences to it to conduct that business here in Lesotho.

In the
light of the conduct of the applicant in these two applications, its
business tactics are not only unethical. They are unlawful. That kind
of business should not be allowed in this Kingdom.

These
unlawful activities together with the copy of this judgment most be
handed to the relevant authorities to consider and take necessary
steps.

COURT
ORDER

1. Coming
   to court when there was no need and obtaining ex-parte order against
   respondent whose business activities were unduly and unfairly
   disrupted.

   
   

2. Seeking
   a final interdict by way of urgent ex-parte applicant when he was
   well aware that there will be material dispute, especially after
   those trade custom exchanges of cylinders, was the total abuse of
   the process -used when there is no need to do so, as the trade
   custom exchange exercise was being practised.

   
   

All these
warrant costs at attorney and client scale.

Lesotho
Teachers & Researchers Union vs Nul C of A No. 13/98 shows

21

that even
where such costs have not been asked for the court is entitled to
show its displeasure by awarding such costs.

Both
applications are dismissed with costs at attorney and client scale.

K. J.
GUNI

JUDGE

7th April
2000

For
Applicant:

For
Respondent: