1

C. OF
A(CIV) NO. 19 OF 19 89

IN THE
COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

In the
appeal of:

CHIEF
RETSELISITSOE JAMESON

QHOBELA.....................
Appellant

THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL........ 1st Respondent

CHIEF
BERENG NATHANAEL

QEHOBELA..................
2nd Respondent

Coram:
Ackermann, J.A.

Steyn, J .''A .

Kotze. J.A.

J U D G M
E N T

KOTZE,
J.A.:

In the
court a quo Molai J. on 15th August 1989 dismissed with costs an
application by the appellant for an order declaring the
revocation of
an earlier approval of a boundary null and void. The present is an
appeal (with which is associated a condonation
application) against
the said dismissal.

Appellant
succeeded the late Chief Qamaka Qhobela (hereinafter referred to as
Qamaka) in 1984 as Chief of Muela

2

in the
Butha-Buthe district. The Second respondent is a chief subordinate to
the appellant of Boinyatso also in the Butha-Buthe
district.

On 20th
August, 1979 her Majesty the Queen (deputizing for the monarch}
approved a report which recommended a boundary favourable
to Qamaka.
On 11th March, 1982 His Majesty - he King, presumably acting on the
advice of the Minister of the Interior, revoked
the aforementioned
approval.

The
appellant noted an appeal against the dismissal of the application
within the period of six weeks prescribed by the rule; on
27th
September, 1989. Close to two years later on 26th August, 1991 the
appellant filed with the Registrar of
this Court the copies of the
record which, in terms of Court of Appeal Rule 3(7), should have been
done not later than three moths
after filing of the notice of appeal
- hence the need for the condonation application referred to above.

The
extremely belated filing of the required number of copies of the
record (some twenty months late) constituted a flagrant
non-compliance with the rules of Court. The excuses offered by the
appellant are unconvincing in the extreme. The
first excuse
relates to difficulties encountered in obtaining a copy of the
judgment. It is of a hearsay nature, vague and should,
in my view, be
disregarded. It reads:

3

" I was informed by my attorneys of record, and I verily believe
same to be true, that they managed to secure a copy of the
written
judgment after many attempts to secure the same from the office of
the Registrar . "

The
second and last excuse is tersely stated in the form of a cryptic
submission unsupported by evidence which carries slight weight:

“It is my respectful submission that the failure to prepare and
file the record
timeously was not occasioned by a willful
disregard of the Rules of this Honourable Court, but due to lsack of
funds."

The gross
degree of the applicant's lateness in filing copies of the record
with the Registrar and the resultant prolonged threat
to the
respondent's right to a final judgment alone fully justify an order
refusing condonation. That, notwithstanding, we heard
argument on the
merits of the appeal. These I consider to be negligible. My reasons
can be stated briefly. The appellant's application
to the Court a quo
is based on allegations that the revocation was wrongful since it
deprived him of an area over which he had
jurisdiction without
extending to him a hearing which constituted a breach of the rules of
natural justice. There is no merit in
this contention. The answering
affidavits filed on behalf of the second respondent establish the
following facts which stand uncontroverted.
Upon the

4

discovery
of certain missing documents, the Minister on 24^th
September, 1981, i.e. prior to appellant's succession to the
chieftainship and. thus before he could claim a hearing, reopened
the
enquiry which led to the approval of Her Majesty. All interested
parties, including Qamaka, were present and accordingly afforded
a
hearing. The discovered documents were fully read and scrutinized.
Qamaka, and indeed all those
present, accepted the validity of the
documents which fully supported the ensuing recommendation by the
Minister which led to the
revocation.

The
application for condonation is dismissed with cost :

J.P.
Kotze

Judge of
Appeal

L.W.H.
ACKERMANN

Judge of
Appeal

I agree.

J.H.
STEYN

Judge of
Appeal

Delivered
at Maseru this 13th day of February 1992.