Dambha v Standard Lesotho Bank Ltd and Another (C of A (CIV) 46 of 2011) [2012] LSCA 20 (27 April 2012)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO C OF A (CIV) No. 46/ 2011 In the m a tter b etw een: FAROUK DAMBHA APPELLANT AND STANDARD LESOTHO BANK LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT TSEBO MONYAKO SECOND RESPONDENT CORAM: SMALBERGER, JA SCOTT, JA HOWIE, JA Hea rd: Delivered: 16 APRIL 2012 27 APRIL 2012 Summa ry Ap p ea l a g a inst refusa l to resc ind d efa ult jud g m ent – la te noting of a p p ea l – unsa tisfa c tory rea son for d ela y a nd a b senc e of p rosp ec ts of suc c ess – a p p lic a tion for c ond ona tion d ismissed w ith c osts. JUDGMENT SCOTT, JA [1] This is a n a p p ea l a g a inst a jud g m ent o f Mona p a thi J who d ismissed a n a p p lic a tion fo r the setting a sid e of a d efa ult jud g ment. The d efa ult jud g m ent w a s g ra nted o n 23 Feb rua ry 2009. On 7 Ma y 2009 the Dep uty Sheriff, w ho is the sec ond resp ond ent, a tta c hed c erta in p ro p erty b elong ing to the a p p ella nt a nd wa s p a id the sum o f M11,672-18 b y the a p p ella nt in red uc tion of the d eb t o w ed to the b a nk, w hic h is the first resp ond ent. Sub seq uently on 1 July 2009 a m oto r c a r in the p o ssession o f the a p p ella nt w a s a tta c hed . On 12 Oc tob er 2009 (m o re tha n two m onths la ter) the a p p lic a tion fo r resc ission of the jud g m ent w a s la unc hed a s a ma tter o f urg enc y. The a p p lic a tion w a s d ismissed b y Mona p a thi J on 2 June 2010 a nd the lea rned jud g e ha nd ed d o wn his rea sons on 10 June. A notic e of a p p ea l w a s served o n the b a nk o n 3 June 2010. Ho w ever, the notic e of a p p ea l w a s filed with the Reg istra r only on 27 Novem b er 2011, tha t is mo re tha n one yea r a nd five m onths la ter. [2] The a p p ella nt a p p lies fo r c ond ona tion fo r the la te no ting of the a p p ea l. This is o p p o sed b y the b a nk. The a p p ella nt in his a ffid a vit in sup p o rt of his a p p lic a tion sa ys tha t he b ec a m e ill a nd b ec a use he w a s unem p loyed w a s una b le to ra ise suffic ient fund s to p a y the leg a l fees nec essa ry fo r the lo d g ing o f the a p p ea l. No d eta ils a s to the na ture of his illness a nd his em p loym ent a re g iven. The exp la na tion is mo st unsa tisfa c to ry. He c ontend s, ho wever, tha t his p ro sp ec ts of suc c ess on a p p ea l a re g o o d . [3] The c o urt a q uo d ec id ed the m a tter a s if it a n a p p lic a tion fo r resc ission in terms o f Rule 27, b ut it w a s not. The a p p lic a tion w a s b ro ug ht in term s o f Rule 45 (1) (a ). It rea d s. “ 45 (i) The c o urt ma y, in a d d itio n to a ny o ther p o wers it ma y ha ve mero mo tu o r up o n the a p p lic a tion o f a ny p a rty a ffec ted , resc ind o r va ry- (a ) a n o rd er o r jud g ment erro neo usly so ug ht o r erro neo usly g ra nted in the a b senc e o f the p a rty a ffec ted thereb y.” [4] The p rinc ip a l g ro und relied up on b y the a p p ella nt in his fo und ing a ffid a vit w a s tha t the summ ons a nd p a rtic ula rs o f c la im w ere d efec tive fo r w a nt o f c o mp lia nc e with Rule 20(6) in tha t a ltho ug h the c a use o f a c tion w a s b a sed on c ontra c t, the resp ond ent fa iled to sta te whether the c o ntra c t w a s verb a l or in w riting a nd w here, w hen a nd b y w hom it w a s c o nc lud ed . The “ sum mons a nd p a rtic ula rs of c la im” w hic h the a p p ella nt refers in his fo und ing a ffid a vit w ere no t inc lud ed in the rec o rd o f the a p p ea l a nd to this extent the rec o rd is inc om p lete. But even if the p a rtic ula rs of c la im w ere d efec tive in the resp ec t a lleg ed , it wo uld b e o f no c onseq uenc e p rovid ed tha t there w a s c o mp lia nc e with Rule 18 in the sense tha t there w a s eno ug h in the sum mons o r p a rtic ula rs o f c la im tha t c o mp rised , a t the lea st, a c o nc ise sta tem ent o f the m a teria l fa c ts relied up on b y the b a nk to sup p o rt its c la im with suffic ient d eta il to d isc lo se a c a use o f a c tion. The re a so n is tha t this is a ll tha t need b e b efo re a jud g e g ra nting d efa ult jud g m ent. The p rovisions o f Rule 20 a p p ly to the d ec la ra tion a nd sub seq uent p lea d ing s b ut not to a summ ons, a nd it is on the b a sis o f a summo ns a lo ne tha t the rule m a kes p rovision fo r the g ra nting of d efa ult jud g ment. In term s o f Rule 21 a d ec la ra tion need o nly b e served “ w ithin 14 d a ys a fter the entry of a p p ea ra nc e.” Even if the jud g e ha d overlo oked the non-c om p lia nc e with Rule 20 in so fa r a s the d ec la ra tion o r p a rtic ula rs o f c la im w ere c onc erned , the fa c t of suc h non-c o mp lia nc e, ha d he b een a w a re o f it, w o uld therefo re not ha ve ind uc ed him to refuse d efa ult jud g m ent. As to the test, see Nyingwa v Moolma n (NO) 1993 (2) 508 (TK GD) a t 510 G. It is a p p a rent fro m the o p p o sing a ffid a vit tha t the a mo unt c la imed b y the b a nk wa s in resp ec t o f money a d va nc ed in p ursua nc e o f overd ra ft fa c ilities a ffo rd ed to the a p p ella nt. Tha t a nd the a mo unt c la imed w o uld b e enoug h. [5] The g ro und s relied up on fo r c o ntend ing tha t the o rd er w a s erro neo usly g ra nted w ere tha t the b a nk ha d not a utho rised the p ro c eed ing s; tha t the p erson who nomina ted the b a nk’ s a tto rneys w a s not a utho rised to d o so , a nd tha t the p erson w ho so ug ht the o rd er, Mp oi Leuta , ha d no rig ht of a ud ienc e. All these a lleg a tions w ere d enied b y the b a nk a nd in my view a re witho ut sub sta nc e. [6] It follow s tha t in m y view the a p p ella nt ha s no p ro sp ec ts of suc c ess in so fa r a s the a p p ea l a g a inst the refusa l to resc ind the d efa ult jud g m ent is c onc erned . [7] In a d d ition to seeking to ha ve the d efa ult jud g m ent set a sid e, the a p p ella nt soug ht to ha ve a n a tta c hm ent in p ursua nc e o f the jud g ment up lifted a nd exec ution sta yed . An o rd er w a s a lso so ug ht fo r the rep a ym ent o f the a mo unt of M11 672-18 whic h the a p p ella nt ha d p a id to the Dep uty Sheriff. To the extent tha t this relief is p remised on the inva lid ity of the d efa ult jud g m ent, there is simila rly no p ro sp ec t o f suc c ess. It a p p ea rs from the rec o rd tha t the a tta c hment of a m oto r c a r c la im ed b y the a p p ella nt no t to b e his p ro p erty ha s sinc e b een up lifted a nd there is a c c o rd ing ly no need to c onsid er the a p p ella nt’ s c la im in resp ec t of it. [8] In the c irc um sta nc es, the a p p lic a tio n fo r the la te noting o f the a p p ea l is d ismissed with c o sts, suc h c o sts to inc lud e the c o sts o f the a p p ea l. _________________ D. G SCOTT JUSTICE OF APPEAL ___________________ J. W SMALBERGER JUSTICE OF APPEAL ___________________ C. T. HOWIE JUSTICE OF APPEAL I a g ree: I a g ree: For the Appella nt For the Respondent : : Ad v S. Fihlo Ad v T. R. Mp a ka