CIV/T/55/81
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the Matter of :
PANDORA MOTORS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff
v
Defendant
MONEHELA MATSIE
JUDGMENT
Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice F.X.Rooney
on the 2nd day of November, 1981.
Mr. Harley for the Plaintiff
Mr. O.K. Mofolo for the Defendant
This is an application by the defendant to compel
the plaintiff to furnish certain particulars. For the sake
of clarity I shall refer to the applicant as the defendant
and the respondent as the plaintiff.
The summons were issued on the 10th March, 1981 in
an action in which the plaintiff claims :
(a)      Cancellation of a certain Hire Purchase
agreement.
(b)     Return of a motor vehicle
(c)     Forfeiture of all instalments paid
by the defendant in terms of the
Hire Purchase Agreement,
(d)     Damages , interest and costs or
(e)     Alternatively payment of M6367.30 and
(f)     Payment of M2,500 in respect of
repairs to a vehicle.
The summons was accompanied by a declaration and
service was effected upon the defendant on the 13th March,
1981. The defendant entered appearance on the 18th March
and at the same time filed a request for further particulars
of matters alleged in the declaration. The plaintiff filed
2/ his reply    

-2-
his reply to the request for further particulars on the
30th March, 1981.
On the 23rd April, 1981 the defendant gave notice
that he required "further and better particulars to his
request dated 18th March, 1981, the plaintiff's summons as
amplified by further particulars". It is in this document
that the defendant raised for the first time the particulars
which he now requires this Court to compel the plaintiff to
supply.
In paragraph 4 of the declaration the following
allegation appears "The provisions of either the Hire
Purchase Act of the Republic of South Africa or of the
Kingdom of Lesotho are not applicable to this Agreement".
In the application before the Court the defendant
required the plaintiff to furnish particulars "as to the
exact nature of the agreement alleged to have been entered
into between plaintiff and defendant and the facts on which
it is alleged that the Hire Purchase Act of Lesotho and that
of the Republic of South Africa do not apply to the agreement
alleged to have been entered into by plaintiff and defendant
by reason of the fact that plaintiff's reply in his further
particulars dated 1st June is evasive".
In this respect it is noted that the plaintiff filed
further replies on the 11th May, 1981 and on the 2nd June,
1981. Notwithstanding that no plea has yet been filed
many documents relating to particulars are now on the file
and have tended to obscure rather than clarify the issues
between the parties. Both parties are in great danger of
losing sight of the object of pleadings.
Rule ?3 of the High Court Rules deals with further
particulars for the purposes of pleadings. There is nothing
in the Rule which authorises more than one request for
particulars. Under sub-rule (1) the party concerned must
deliver notice within the time allowed for him to deliver a
plea or replication or any other pleading as the case may be.
In the present instance the defendant having entered
appearance had 21 days from the service upon him of the
declaration in which to deliver his plea (Rule 22(1)).
3/ The request ......

-3-
The request made by the defendant for particulars on the
23rd April was out of time and should have been treated
accordingly by the plaintiff. Moreover there is no rule
in Lesotho similar to that which appears in Rule 21 (6)
of the Uniform Rules of Court of the Supreme Court of
South Africa. On the contrary, an application to this
Court for an order for delivery of particulars is expressly
stated by Rule 25 (6) to be subject to the provisions of
sub-rule (5) of Rule 30 which reads as follows
"Where a party fails to comply timeously with
a request made or notice given pursuant to these
Rules, the party making the request or giving
the notice may notify the defaulting party
that he intends after the lapse of seven days,
to apply for an order that such a request or
notice be complied with, or that the claim or
defence be struck out. Failing compliance within
the seven days, application may be made to court
and the court may make such order thereon as it
deems fit".
No such notice was given by the defendant before
lodging this application. The application is therefore
not properly before the Court and is dismissed with costs.
The Court reserves to itself the right at the
conclusion of the trial to disallow the costs of either
party flowing from any unnecessary request for further
particulars or reply thereto. (Rule 25 (7)). As matters
now stand the defendant is in default under Rule 22 (1)
and became barred from pleading on the 27th April. (Rule
26(3)). However, if the defendant makes an application
under Rule 26(4) without further delay it will receive
favourable consideration.
F.X.ROONEY
JUDGE

2nd November, 1981.
Attorney for the Plaintiff S.C. Harley & Co.
Attorney for the Defendant - O.K. Mofolo & Co.