This was an appeal against the decision of the High Court to recognise the respondent as the rightful heir to real property. The matter had commenced in the local court, the contention between the parties being, who the rightful heir to the property was. The issue for the court’s determination was whether it could entertain the appeal. It relied on s 17 of the Court of Appeal Act 1978 and the decision in Mahabanka Mohale v ’Makholu Leuta Mahao C of A (CIV) No. 22 of 2004. The court observed that the appellant filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal almost fourteen months after the High Court judgement had been passed and found that the appeal was out of time. The Court stated further that although it had discretion to allow a breach of rules in a fitting case, the appellant had failed to file an application for condonation with supporting affidavits to enable the court to make a determination on whether to exercise its discretion. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appellant’s application for leave to appeal and struck the appeal off the roll.
C OF A (CIV) NO.28 OF 2005
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO
In the matter between
TEFO MOFELI APPELLANT
and
RALEBOLELO KAIBE RESPONDENT
CORAM:
RAMODIBEDI , JA
MELUNSKY, JA
TEELE, AJ
SUMMARY
Civil appeal Section 17 of the Court of Appeal Act 1978 not followed Application for leave to appeal made almost 14 months after the date of the High Court judgment sought to be appealed against No application for condonation Rules 2(1) (2) (7) and 8 (2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1980 invoked.
JUDGMENT
RAMODIBEDI, JA
[1] This case has, in typical fashion of cases of its nature in this country, already shuttled through four different courts including the High Court. It all began on 21 December 1999 when the appellant sued the respondent at Peka Local Court for a residential site, 2 fields and 2 forests of poplar trees at Ha Mofeli. These properties had previously belonged to the appellants late grandfather, Motake Mofeli and his wife Malieketseng who had also passed away. The appellant claimed the properties on the basis of inheritance. He relied on a family decision, annexure A, dated 19 August 1995 which apparently nominated him as heir to both Motake Mofeli and Malieketseng. The old couple had no male children. They only had one daughter, namely, the respondents mother who was married to the Kaibe family at Mathokoane.
[2] The respondents case on the other hand was that he was adopted by the deceased couple who brought him up as their own child. He lived with them since 1956. Furthermore, he, too, relies on a written decision by Mofeli family, dated 21 July 1985. Therein the family endorsed Malieketsengs decision to award the disputed properties to the respondent. This decision was made in the presence of the Chiefs representative, Thabo Makoeng. The decision also bears the chiefs date stamp as an indication of his approval.
[3] Before proceeding further, it is convenient at this stage to mention that after hearing submissions in this matter on 12 October 2006, we dismissed the appellants application for leave to appeal and struck the appeal off the roll. We intimated that reasons would be filed on 20 October 2006. These are the reasons.
[4] The record shows that the parties enjoyed fluctuating fortunes from one court to another, stretching all the way up to the fourth tier of the courts hierarchy in this country. The Peka Local Court found for the appellant purely on the basis that he was the heir to the deceased couple. The Respondents appeal to Tsifalimali Central Court succeeded to the extent that the court ordered that the case should start de novo. On further appeal to the Judicial Commissioners Court, however, the decision of the Tsifalimali Central Court was reversed and that of the Peka Local Court reinstated. The respondent appealed to the High Court which upheld the appeal with costs on 12 August 2005.
[5] The appellant has purported to come before this Court on appeal. But it is evident from the aforementioned background that, having gone through several appellate courts, this appeal is hit by the provisions of section 17 of the Court of Appeal Act 1978. The section in question reads as follows:-
17. Any person aggrieved by any judgment of the High Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction may appeal to the Court with the leave of the Court or upon the certificate of the Judge who heard the appeal on any ground of appeal which involves a question of law but not on a question of fact.
This Court has dealt with the effect of this section in such cases as Mahabanka Mohale v Makholu Leuta Mahao C of A (CIV) No. 22 of 2004; Mofoka v Lihanela 1985 89 LAC 326. Legal practitioners have therefore sufficiently been warned.
[6] On 9 October 2006, a few days before the hearing of the appeal and almost fourteen months since the High Court judgement, the appellant filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal against the court a quos judgment in question. However, it is important to have regard to the provisions of Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1980. Sub-rules (1) and (2) thereof read as follows:-
2. (1) Where an application for leave to appeal is
necessary in a criminal matter in terms of section 8 of
the Court of Appeal Act No. 10 of 1978, such application shall be made by way of a notice of motion supported by affidavits.
(2) The notice of motion together with affidavits and all relevant documents including the judgment of the High Court shall be delivered within twenty-one days of the date of judgement or order of the High Court, a copy of such notice shall be served upon the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Sub-rule (7) of Rule 2 in turn provides:-
(7) Where an application for leave to appeal in a civil
matter is necessary in terms of section 17 of the Court of
Appeal Act No. 10 of 1978 the provisions of sub-rules (1)
to (6) inclusive of this Rule shall mutatis mutandis apply,
all parties who might be interested in the appeal if the
application were to be granted being considered to be in
the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
[7] It follows from the aforegoing that the application for leave to appeal is hopelessly out of time. An application that should have been made within 21 days has now been made almost 14 months after the High Court judgment.
[8] Although this Court has a judicial discretion in terms of Rule 8(2) to condone any breach of the Rules in a fitting case it will only do so for good cause shown on application by notice of motion. In this regard sub-rule 8 (3) provides:-
(3) Such application shall be by notice of motion
delivered to the respondent and to the Registrar
not less than seven days before the date of hearing.
(Emphasis added.)
[9] Now, the reason why the Rules of this Court provide for a notice of motion, supported by affidavits, is clearly to enable the Court to gauge such factors as (1) the degree of delay involved before making the application, (2) the adequacy of the reasons given for the delay, (3) the prospects of success on appeal and (4) the respondents interest in the finality of the matter. See Koaho v Solicitor General 1980 1984 LAC 35 at 36-37.
[10] In the absence of an application for condonation supported by affidavits this Court is not in a position to gauge these factors. Prima facie, the delay of almost 14 months before the appellant brought an application for leave to appeal is inordinate. Prima facie, once again, the respondent may have been severely prejudiced thereby. His interest in the finality of the matter cannot, in these circumstances, be ignored. There is, therefore, a need to draw a line somewhere.
[11] In these circumstances, and there being no application for condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal to this Court, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed and the appeal struck off the roll with costs.
__________________
M.M RAMODIBEDI
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
I agree ___________________
L. MELUNSKY
________________
I agree M.E. TEELE
ACTING JUDGE
Delivered at Maseru this 20th day of October 2006.
For Appellant : Miss N. Hoohlo
For Respondent: Mr T. Hlaoli