CIV/APN/236/83

CIV/T/442/83

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter of

'MAMOKONE
POSA Plaintiff/Applicant

v

POSA E
POSA Defendant/Respondent

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Hon. Chief Justice Mr. Justice T S Cotran on the 26th day of
June 1984

The
plaintiff 'Mamokone sued the defendant Posa, who is her husband, for
a decree of Judicial separation a mensa et thoro and for
alternative
or further relief

The
defendant resists the claim and counterclaims for an order directing
the plaintiff to restore conjugal rights failing compliance
with
which a decree of divorce on the grounds of malicious desertion It is
common cause that prior to the breach the matrimonial
home of the
parties was a house on plot 872 Cathedral Area, Maseru, acquired
through the Lower Income Housing Company Society Ltd
(Lehco-op). The
house was completed through the joint effort of the parties although
there is a dispute as to how much each contributed.

The
plaintiff brought an application seeking, pendente lite,

1. Maintenance
   in the sum of M80 per month

   
   

2. Maintenance
   for the child in the sum of M100 per month

   
   

3. Payment
   of M60 towards her legal fees

   
   

2

4. An
   order directing the defendant to provide her with accommodation at
   the matrimonial home or "at any place the Court may
   deem fit"

   
   

The
position at the time of hearing the application was as follows –

1. The
   plaintiff/applicant was employed and earning How much we do not
   know.

   
   

2. The
   plaintiff/applicant has been provided with accommodation for her and
   the child by defendant/respondent's father

   
   

3. The
   defendant/respondent had lost his job as a salesman in a furniture
   shop and now earns nothing

   
   

4. The
   matrimonial home at Cathedral area had been let by the
   defendant/respondent to some tenants in order to pay Lehco-op
   instalments
   due on the house loan According to him a great part of
   the M30 rent goes in repayment and the rest is necessary for his own
   living
   expenses He swore he had no other income

   
   

I
indicated to counsel for the plaintiff/applicant that on these facts
it is beyond my comprehension how and from where the
defendant/respondent
is expected to pay the amounts claimed pendente
lite I indicated to counsel that I am prepared to grant the
plaintiff/applicant
interim relief safeguarding her rights, if any,
to the joint property Until the position of the defendant/respondent
changes for
the better when the applicant can move the Court again,
the only order I can make pendente lite is that the
defendant/respondent
will not sell, dispose or otherwise alienate the
matrimonial property until the action is disposed of The
defendant/respondent
will pay the costs

CHIEF
JUSTICE

26th June
1984

For
Plaintiff/Applicant Mr. Kambule

For
Defendant/Respondent Mr Redelinghuys