CIV/T/249/79

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
Matter of :

TS'ITSO
LEANYA Plaintiff

v.

LESOTHO
EVANGELICAL CHURCH Defendant

REASONS
FOR RULING

Filed by
the Hon. Mr. Justice F.X. Rooney on the 29th day of January, 1982.

Plaintiff
in Person

Mr. Sello
for the Defendants, not called upon.

When this
application, which purports to be made under Rule 45 (1)(b) of the
High Court Rules, appeared on the motion roll for 25th
January, 1982,
I dismissed it summarily. I considered it to be an abuse of the
process of this Court and I ordered that the plaintiff
pay the
defendants' cost to be taxed on an attorney and client scale.

On the
19th October, 1981, I dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs. If
the plaintiff is dissatisfied with that decision he
has the right to
appeal to the Court of Appeal under Sec. 16(1)(a) of the Court of
Appeal Act 1978. As far as I am aware he has
not filed any appeal.
Instead he has come back to this Court by way of notice of motion
seeking a retrial of the action. In these
proceedings he has referred
to the evidence led at the trial and to findings of fact made by this
Court upon that evidence. He
has also raised arguments on matters of
law which may either have been dealt with in the judgment already
referred to or are now
submitted for the first time. What the
plaintiff is asking the Court to do is to re-open the case and on a
reconsideration of the
whole matter reverse the judgement already
pronounced as final on the 19th October, 1981. He has not referred
the Court to any
ambiguities or patent errors or omissions in the
judgment itself. That being the case he cannot be heard in this Court
for a second
time.

2

Although
the plaintiff maintained that he drew up the notice of motion and the
affidavit himself these documents bear the hallmarks
of having been
prepared either by a legal practitioner who is ashemed to subscribe
to them or by someone with a little knowledge
of legal procedure who
is not an enrolled or admitted member of the profession. Whoever
advised the plaintiff to make this application
has done him an ill
service.

There can
be no doubt that by the Roman Dutch Law an order of Court once it has
been pronounced by the word of mouth of the judge
cannot as a rule be
thereafter altered or amended by the judge. (Estate Garlick v.
Commissioner of Inland of Revenue 1934 AD 499at
502). The only
exception to that general principle is that provided for in Rule 45
of the High Court Rules. A Court has the power
to correct errors in
orders granted by it so as to ensure that the order conveys the
meaning which the Court had originally intended
(Brits & Others
v. Engelbrecht & Others 1907 TS 880 where Innes C.J. quoted Voet
42.1.27

"a judge may explain his order or may correct small errors
therein or supplement it in minor details provided he does so
timeously, but in other respects a judgment once delivered stands and
cannot be altered by the judge who pronounced it".

The
plaintiff's application was entirely misconceived and misdirected. It
was dealt with accordingly.

F.X.
ROONEY

JUDGE.

29th
January, 1982

Attorney
for the Defendants: Messrs. Mohaleroe, Sello & Co.