CIV\APNS\142,143,144 & 145\96
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the Applications of :
MATHETSO FOLOKO Applicant
SOLOMON LETHOBA Applicant
CHARLES MAHASA Applicant
THABO TLALINYANE Applicant
vs
L.A.D.B. AND OTHERS Respondents
JUDGMENT
Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice M.L. Lehohla on the 12th day of March, 1996
I will start with the last point relating to so-called non-disclosure. It appears to me that the argument or the raising of points in limine relating to non-disclosure was premature in the sense that at the time the application was made and the affidavits were filed, there hadn't yet been any payment to any of the applicants by respondents 2 and 4. The payment was subsequent to the filing of Founding Affidavits so that raising the point in limine based on the contention that there was nondisclosure was not only ill-conceived but was premature, so on that basis the point in limine relating to that point is dismissed.
Next comes the case of urgency. I have listened to the argument relating thereto. It has been made clear to me that
2
there was the stage when the fund held by second respondent was alive but two years later information got disseminated among the that they have not received any money from that fund to which they had been making contributions so that to me it appears that the legitimacy of moving an application on the basis of urgency was well-founded and was precipitated by this new development which occurred two years or so afterwards. Therefore the point raised in limine challenging the basis on which the urgency was perceived is also dismissed.
Now, comes the last point that relates to dispute of fact. Regarding the point raised in limine as to the dispute of fact, this was in part centred on contents of para 4.1 where the Managing Director or 4th respondent is said to have acted together with the 1st respondent and second respondent to place monies in their personal accounts. The true position is that nowhere have applicants stated that that was the case . Nowhere has use been made by them of the word personal. All that they said was that the monies were kept in a salaries account of the Bank by the 4th respondent and the Bank itself, so that any dispute of fact based on this misconception cannot but fail. Moreover paragraph 1.5 clearly avers that the 4th respondent is cited in his official capacity. This averment places the matter beyond dispute.
3
I dismiss the point raised in limine based on that also and reserve the question of coats pending argument on the merits.
JUDGE
12th March, 1996
For Applicants : Miss Tau
For Respondents: Mr. Sekake
