HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
Application of :
JOAS t/a LESOTHO FUNERAL SERVICES Applicant
DISTRICT POULTERY CO-OP SOCIETY Respondent
by the Hon. Mr Justice M.L. Lehohla on the 30th day of April. 1990.
applicant Louis Joas trading as Lesotho Funeral Services brought his
application to court on notice of motion seeking an order:
the respondent to effect transfer of every right, title and interest
in and to plot number 26, situate in the Quthing
Urban Area, into
the applicant's name.
and directing the Registrar to sign and execute on behalf of the
respondent all necessary documents for the transfer
of the property
in question, should the respondent fail to comply with the order
prayed for in prayer 1 above. And (see further
para. 10 of the
applicant's founding affidavit).
the applicant costs, or
applicant an alternative relief.
founding papers the applicant sets out that
the respondent entered into a verbal agreement (by which I am made to
understand is meant oral agreement for indeed
whether written or
oral an agreement is verbal as long as it is composed of words. But
if oral it is not written and vice versa)
in terms of which the
applicant was to build a new storeroom for the respondent at the
latter's new site.
pursuance of this agreement the applicant avers that he fulfilled the
obtained a building permit a copy of which is attached marked "A".
the ninety six day stipulated period for completion of the building
he had completed the undertaking and handed the keys
thereof to the
appears that condition (c) was not met by the respondent. This
condition according to the applicant was that when he had completed
the building in (b) then a certain site No. 26 which before being
registered as a Corporative Society belong in to the Egg Circle
be transferred by the respondent to the applicant.
preliminary arguments the applicant's counsel submitted that there
are no real disputes of fact in this application and invited
court to be wary of deliberately created disputes of fact.
submitted that it was desirable to dispose of these spurious disputes
of fact. He pointed out that it is not proper for the respondent
reaction to the applicant's averment to keep on saying "I deny
these and put the applicant to proof thereof!? without stating
questions the authority of the applicant to bring these proceedings
or stating what qualification its deponent has to say
its chairman is
authorised to oppose this application.
It is of
fundamental importance to bear in mind that applications are not only
pleadings but evidence. It is
proper therefore to withhold information which, if supplied, would
have the effect of curtailing lengthy proceedings and the
accompanying costs with the hope that oral evidence would later help
ventilate possible areas of dispute.
with this in view that the applicant's counsel sought to implore the
court to direct the respondent to file supplementary
which full evidence as to its authority is set out.
respondent's counsel opposed the move proposed on behalf of the
applicant Mr Sello stated that he was then withdrawing
application and asking the court to grant application as set out in
contended for the applicant that it was not proper for 'Neko to say
he is entitled to make the affidavit he made instead
of saying he was
authorised to do so as well as making an indication of that
further pointed out that ex facie the papers there is not even any
remote indication that he is authorised to make his affidavit
seems that he thinks that because he is a chairman he is entitled to
interfere in proceedings in which he has no locus standi.
applicant was however not keen on having this application dealt
with on this technical ground alone.
regard to the merits the applicant relies on Annexure "C"
which shows that he entered into an agreement with
respondent respresented by people listed in that annexure. It was
submitted that annexure "C" is a prima facie document
executed by the respondent for it bears the respondent's date stamp
and is signed by people representing the respondent.
shows that in her capacity as the chair-lady Mrs Mary Damane was
authorised by the undersigned persons, to
wit, 'Maphabo Makotoko,
'Mathabo Khoathane and 'Mahlomohang Tsekoa acting on behalf of the
all the necessary arrangements for the transfer of site No. 26 to Mr
Louis Sello on fulfilment by the latter of conditions
to earlier in this judgment.
behalf of the respondent avers that he knows nothing about annexure
"C" and goes further to say that even if
it could be said
he is aware of its existence it was not effected with the authority
of the respondent.
whatever 'Neko's attitude is to the application it seems to me
untenable to support his self-defeating stance in the face
applicant's un-contradicted evidence that he has performed his side
of the contract.
application is granted with costs.
Applicant : Mr Sello
Respondent: Mr Hlaoli.
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