HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
Application of :
MOSAO 1st Respondent
OF POLICE 2nd Respondent
by the Hon. Acting Mr. Justice M. Lehohla on the 30th day of May,
1988 was the anticipated return day in response to an urgent
application moved ex parte before Molai J who granted the
order returnable on 3rd June, 1988.
anticipated return day applicant sought extension of the return date
to the original one granted at the hearing of the application
parte. First respondent vehemently opposed the postponement and the
concomitant extension of the rule.
sought the postponement on the grounds that because of the distance
between his attorneys' offices in Maseru and his own
residence in Durban Stanger he is not able to furnish his replies on
the anticipated return date. First respondent however,
so argues that when applicant approached the Court ex parte he should
have weighed the odds against him end realised
that should the
respondent anticipate the rule the applicant would be faced with the
obvious predicament he finds himself in today.
In other words
respondent cannot be allowed to evade the worst circumstances brought
about at his own instance.
attempt to come to the applicant's rescue Mr. Moiloa submitted that
the subject matter in the main application namely a motor
in neutral hands and in any event the original return date is only a
week away and that applicant has understood that
he would be required
to pay the costs of the postponement.
had occasion to refer to C of A (CIV) No. 16 of 1984 Kutloano
Building Construction vs Matsoso & 2 Others (unreported)
where Schutz P. said
"I am afraid that my decision may smack of the triumph of
formalism over substance. But forms are often important and the
requirements of the sub-rule are such."
purport of this dictum clearly is to enforce compliance with the
rules. It has basis on the well known principle of the procedural
rule that when form is not observed a failure of action ensues.
countervailing view however exists and I think it has application in
the instant matter that forms are surrendered in order to
miscarriage of justice.
in exercise of my discretion baaed on R. 59, and not without
reluctance I grant application for extension of the rule
to 3rd June
1988. The application is postponed to that day. Costs of 27th May
1988 were awarded to first respondent. Today's costs
will stand over
pending the final determination of issues involved in the
Applicant : Mr. Moiloa
Respondents : Mr. Nthethe.
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