1

C. OF A.
(CIV) NO.14 OF 1996

IN THE
LESOTHO COURT OF APPEAL

In the
matter between:

IKETSETSENG
PRIVATE SCHOOL 1ST APPELLANT

'MASECHELE
KHAKETLA 2ND APPELLANT

AND

BALE
MALEE 1ST RESPONDENT

M.M.
SECURITY (PTY) LTD 2ND RESPONDENT

IKETSETSENG
PRIVATE SCHOOL 3RD RESPONDENT

HELD AT
MASERU

CORAM;

STEYN AP

KOTZE JA

VAN DEN
HEEVER AJA

JUDGMENT

KOTZE' JA

In the
High Court Mrs Khaketla purporting to be the "proprietor"
of Iketsetseng Private School (the school) applied for
a spoliation
order against one Bale Malee and M.M. Security on the strength of
allegations that the said respondents were replacing
locks to
portions of the school building.. A rule nisi originally granted was
not confirmed - hence this appeal. The ownership
(or proprietorship)
claimed by Mrs Khaketla is seriously in doubt and indeed unproven. It
is undisputed that after protracted litigation
this Court, during
1993 placed the ownership of the school property in the hands of two
trustees and

2

divested
Mrs. Khaketla thereof. In her founding affidavit in the present
matter she admitted that she "did not make the said
handovers."
It follows that her claim of ownership cannot be sustained. Small
wonder therefore that confusion set in: the
school at one stage
became both "applicant" and "respondent" in the
formal pleadings and affidavits filed in
the High Court, the school
and Mrs Khaketla featured as applicant and respondent respectively
and Mr. Phoofolo could, despite repeated
enquiries by members of the
Court, not dispel the conclusion that a determined effort was afoot
to obscure the identity of the
person responsible for initiating the
proceedings and whose possession was allegedly disturbed. I hasten to
stress that no impropriety
by Mr. Phoofolo is suggested.

It is
clear from the above introductory remarks that the failure to
establish whose possession, if any, was disturbed justified
the
discharge of the rule albeit on a different ground and precludes this
Court from upholding the appeal.

It
follows that the appeal must be dismissed. It remains to deal with
the question of costs. Mrs. Caroline 'Masechele' Khaketla
has been
identified as the initiator of the abortive application for a
spoliation order. Regard being had to the Court order of
1993 which
divested her of the school property, the"absence of merit and
resultant abuse of the process of the Court, I am
of the view that an
order of costs on the appropriate scale between attorney and client
should be made against Mrs Khaketla.

3

G.P.C.
KOTZE'

JUDGE OF
APPEAL

I agree.

J.H.
STEYN

ACTING
PRESIDENT

The
appeal is dismissed. Costs are awarded against Mrs Caroline
'Masechele Khaketla on the appropriate scale between attorney and

client.

I agree

L. VAN
DEN HEEVER

ACTING
JUDGE OF APPEAL.

Delivered
at Maseru on 29th June, 1996.