IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

 C of A (CIV) No.4/2021

                                                                                                                    

HELD AT MASERU                                                  

 

In the matter between

 

ASIF MAHMOOD NAEEM                                 1ST APPELLANT

RAMAZANI ALI                                                2ND APPELLANT

NKWATILE KOSE                                            3RD APPELLANT

SHAKIL AHMAD                                              4TH APPELLANT

 

 

and

 

ALI RIZWAN                                                   1ST RESPONDENT

MULTI FURNITURE & HARDWARE.              2ND RESPONDENT

LICENCING AUTHORITY

MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY         3RD RESPONDENT

MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY         4TH RESPONDENT

OFFICER COMMANDING SEKAKE POLICE   5TH RESPONDENT

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE                        6TH RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL                                  7TH RESPONDENT

 

 

CORAM:           K E MOSITO P

                      M H CHINHENGO AJA

                      NT MTSHIYA AJA

              

                   

 

Heard:           20 April 2021

Delivered:   20 April 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHINHENGO AJA:-

 

 

RULING

 

[1]    The 1st appellant sought interdictory relief in the High Court on an ex parte basis against the 1st respondent and 6 others in order to prohibit them:

(a) from trading in and selling stock in the business belonging to the 2nd respondent at Lethloepe Business compound (Qachas’neck reserve) and Ha Sekake business compound;

 

(b) from removing and disposing of the stock in those business premises;

 

(c ) from obstructing the 1st appellant’s agents from removing the stock; and

(d) directing the Police respondents to give necessary assistance to the 1st appellant in removing the stock and permitting the 1st appellant to remove the stock from the business compounds.

 

[2]    A perusal of the affidavits shows that several persons were unnecessarily cited as parties in this litigation. In passing, I must sound a warning that in future this Court may be constrained to disallow the cost of service of process upon persons that should not be made parties to litigation. In this case, for example, it is uncalled for to involve the police in the litigation or cite and serve them with papers therein when it is trite that orders in civil matters are enforced through execution mechanisms that involve the sheriff and not necessarily the police. To unnecessarily burden a litigant with the costs of service of process is completely inappropriate. 

 

[3]    The application was opposed. The court a quo first granted an order directing that the matter be heard as an urgent one and that the application be served on the respondents. After a further hearing the court issued a rule nisi granting the relief sought by the 1st respondent. The appellants noted an appeal against the granting of the rule nisi after it dismissed certain preliminary objections raised by them, in particular, an objection to jurisdiction.

 

[4]    At the hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellants conceded that the appeal was misconceived and agreed to an order by consent which I set out below. It is therefore unnecessary to outline the facts of this case or to address any of the issues and contentions that resulted in the concession by appellants’ counsel and the order by consent

 

[5]    In the result, this Court makes an order in terms of the order by consent as follows:

 

“1. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

1. The application in CCA:0003/21 to proceed as scheduled.”

 

 

•  

MH CHINHENGO

ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL

 

 

I AGREE

 

____________________________________

K E MOSITO

PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

 

 

 

I AGREE

•  

NT MTSHIYA

ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL

 

 

FOR APPELLANT:                    ADV. CJ LEPHUTHING 

FOR RESPONDENTS:              ADV.P J TS’ENOLI