CIV/T/
299/04

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter between

M & K
SECURITY (PTY) LTD PLAINTIFF

AND

STEPHEN
SETENANE MAJALLE DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

DELIVERED
BY THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KJ. GUNI ON THE 8th SEPTEMBER, 2005

The
plaintiff in this matter is described as M & K SECURITY (PTY) LTD
a company duly incorporated under the Laws of Lesotho.
The defendant
is the director and the majority shareholder of the
plaintiff/company. The company is suing him for the payment of
large
sums of money which are allegedly in his possession. The defendant
denies all the allegations made against him by the plaintiff.

The
defendant makes a counter claim that he bailed out the
plaintiff/company in the amount of one hundred (100,000.00) thousands

maloti. The defendant-in-reconvention's attorneys requested further
particulars from the plaintiff-in-reconvention regarding this
counter
claim of an amount of one hundred thousand maloti. The
defendant-in-reconvention want the break down of the one hundred

thousand. The company wonders how the figure is arrived at.

According
to the plaintiff-in-reconvention he had to use his own family money
to bail out the defendant-in-reconvention for claims
brought against
it by its former employees. He bailed the company out to the sum of
one hundred thousand maloti [100,000. 00].

The
plaintiff-in-reconvention provided no break down as requested. The
question to answer is whether or not the particulars requested
are
strictly necessary for the defendant-in-reconvention to plead. Both
parties in this matter are in agreement as regards reasons
for
seeking further particulars. The further particulars are sought by
the party first of all to enable that party to plead or
to enable
that party to prepare for the trial. Refer to HERBESTEIN & VAN
WINSEN CIVIL PRACTICE OF SUPERIOR COURTS IN SOUTH
AFRICA - 3rd
Edition.

2

The
plaintiff-in-reconvention's claim is based on or arises out of the
payment into Labour court whose registrar in order to enforce
an
award, threatened to or actually locked up the
defendant-in-reconvention as set out in paragraph 9 of the said
counter claim.
The further particulars sought are therefore not
necessary for the defendant-in-reconvention to plead.

This
application therefore must fail. It is dismissed with costs.

K.J. GUNI

JUDGE

For
Plaintiff : Mr. Makhera

For
Defendant : Mr. Matooane

3