Tsehlo v Ntsasa (CIV\APN 229 of 94) [1998] LSCA 47 (18 May 1998)

CIV\APN\229\94 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the Application of: L E T S E MA T S E H LO Applicant vs N C H E LA N T S A SA Respondent J U D G M E NT ON P O I N TS OF L AW Delivered by the Hon. Mr Justice M L Lehohla on the 18th day of May,1998 In C of A ( C I V) N o. 1 2 \ 97 Stella Kaka vs Lesotho Bank and 4 Ors (unreported) at pp 1,2 a nd 3 v an d en H e e v er J. A. d e m u r r ed at the appalling state of the record a nd said in J a n u a ry this y e ar : "I point out w i th a m e a s u re of detail the faults b o th in f o rm a nd in s u b s t a n ce a p p a r e nt f r om the record, n ot as an e x p r e s s i on of displeasure, but in the h o pe that it will p r o v i de g u i d a n ce useful to the future of administration of justice in the K i n g d om of L e s o t ho ". T he learned j u d ge then started picking at instances of p o or t y p i ng a n d \ or proof-reading. It is m o st distressing that the type of c o m p l a i nt s he raised in that a p p e al reared its ugly h e ad with a v e n g e a n ce in the instant application w h e re either w o r ds w h i ch s h o u ld h a ve b e en i n c l u d ed to m a ke s e n se in a s e n t e n ce are m i s s i ng or the diction e m p l o y ed leaves the r e a d er in a state of frustration as to w h at the i n t e n d ed m e a n i ng in the sentence c o u ld h a ve b e e n. S ee for an e x a m p le p a ge 5 p a r a g r a ph 5.4 w h e re it is written T he arable w h i ch " M O N Y A NE b e c a me h o l d e rs of w h i ch h ad b e en lying u n u s ed for as l o ng as I c o u ld r e m e m b er a nd t h ey h a ve recently a c q u i r ed it" R e s p o n d e nt l a nd a nd S O O T HO 5.5 " W i th o ur p l o u gh p u l l ed by cattle to go a nd p l o u gh o ur fields a nd tractors a nd also p a s s ed w i th o ur sledges a nd w a g o ns to l o ad p r o d u ce f r om o ur fields after h a r v e s t i n g" 7.2 " W i th the closure if the p a s s a ge by R e s p o n d e nt I h a ve impossible to r e a ch my a b s o l u t e ly l a n ds w i th sledges p l o u g hs a nd w a g o ns All these a p p e ar in the f o u n d i ng affidavit. In the replying affidavit the distress e x p e r i e n c ed is n ot alleviated by o n e 's confrontation w i th p a r a g r a ph 4.2 p a ge 27 s a y i ng " p e o p le are suffering as a result of closure I h a ve specifically referred to h a r d s h i ps w h i ch I a nd the other " my to o ur lands of or 4.3 to the f o l l o w i ng effect "It is o b v i o us to a n y b o dy w ho is n ot paying g a m es that my father K o p a ng in his affidavit c o n f i r ms that he is a m o ng the 'others' I h a ve referred to " T he r e s p o n d e nt h as his s h a re of t he b l a me if o n ly to a negligible d e g r ee at p a ge 25 w h e re it is stated in p a r a g r a ph 3 of the translated v e r s i on of a letter written by J. T. N t e pe to the A c t i ng C h i ef " N ow the d e c i s i on is that N c h e la h as p l o u g h ed his o wn field w h i ch a p p e a rs n ot to h a ve lied fallow....". So m u ch t h en for the a b o v e; a nd it r e m a i ns n ow to g r a p p le w i th the m a t t er d ue for consideration. T he points raised in limine by Mr Mafantiri for t he r e s p o n d e n ts are that - ( a) there is a dispute of facts w h i ch c a n n ot be r e s o l v ed on the affidavits alone. C o n s e q u e n t ly the application o u g ht to fail on this g r o u nd alone. My v i ew is that s u ch a point o u g ht to fail p r o v i d ed it is s h o wn that the dispute of fact is g e n u i ne a nd that the applicant o u g ht to h a ve f o r e s e en that it w as likely to be raised. W h e re the C o u rt is of the v i ew that a l t h o u gh the existence of the dispute is u n d e n i a b le a nd that it c a n n ot be r e s o l v ed on p a p e rs b ut feels that d i s m i s s i ng the application w o u ld a m o u nt to injustice in the s e n se that m o v i ng o t h e r w i se t h an on the basis of u r g e n cy w o u ld result in irreparable h a r m, the C o u rt is at large to refer the d i s p u t ed point o n ly to oral e v i d e n c e. (b) T he applicant h as no locus standi to b r i ng the p r e s e nt application as the field in q u e s t i on d o es n ot b e l o ng to h im b ut to his father. S ee p a r a g r a ph 3.1 of K o p a ng T s e h l o 's s u p p o r t i ng affidavit. W h i le at first b l u sh the r e s p o n d e nt c o u ld be said to be justified in m a k i ng an e x c e p t i on in r e g a rd to the c o n t e n ts of t he p a r a g r a ph in question, the context in w h i ch the w o r ds are u s ed is consistent w i th the contention by the applicant that n ot o n ly his b ut o t h er p e o p l e 's a c c e ss to their respective fields h as b e en o c c l u d ed by the r e s p o n d e n t 's action. T h us I am satisfied that w h en applicant's father K o p a ng refers to a certain field as his he d o e s n 't refer to t he particular field w h i ch the applicant is a g g r i e v ed that he h i m s e lf is u n a b le to r e a c h. (c) T he applicant h as ignored p r o v i s i o ns of section 6 of t he H i gh C o u rt A ct 1 9 78 requiring that a ny civil c a u se or action w h i ch is w i t h in the jurisdiction of a subordinate court c an o n ly be instituted in or r e m o v ed into the H i gh C o u rt (i) by a j u d ge of the H i gh C o u rt acting on his o wn m o t i o n; (ii) w i th the leave of a j u d ge u p on application m a de to h im in C h a m b e r s, a nd after notice to the o t h er party". My v i ew is that since the f o rm of interdict b e i ng s o u g ht is of a p e r m a n e nt nature it scarcely m a k es sense that the applicant c o u ld seriously be r e q u i r ed to m o ve his application in the s u b o r d i n a te court in the first p l a c e. If my v i ew s t a n ds in this c o n n e c t i on it w o u ld s e em only natural that on a c c o u nt of the e x i g e n cy of the r e m e dy b e i ng s o u g ht the applicant did w e ll to a p p r o a ch the o n ly c o u rt w h e re his p l ea if sustainable w o u ld fetch a p e r m a n e nt relief. ( d) T he applicant h as n ot e x h a u s t ed d o m e s t ic r e m e d i e s. T h is a r g u m e nt arises f r om the fact that w h en first the applicant felt aggrieved he w e nt to his chief but n ow without bothering to go t h r o u gh the p e c k i ng o r d er of chiefs in reverse order he h as a p p r o a c h ed this C o u r t. I think this a r g u m e nt is t oo little to the point to merit serious consideration. T he foregoing a r g u m e n ts to the counter s h o u ld suffice to cover it. Suffice it to say, it is all v e ry w e ll for the applicant to s e ek c h e ap m e a ns of redressing his grievance. G o i ng to the chief w o u ld s e em to be ideal in that regard. B ut the fact that he did so in the first place; a nd m u ch of his time w as w a s t ed w i t h o ut a ny progress in the m e a n t i m e, s h o u ld n ot be u s ed as a b ar to an a v e n ue to w h i ch he is entitled w h e t h er or not he tried the local chief's intervention in the first place. Suffice it to e m p h a s i se that the nature of relief s o u g ht is of e x t r e me u r g e n cy in respect of w h i ch the applicant w o u ld h a ve b e en entitled to an interdict if he s o u g ht o n e. A r e m e dy for spoliation is a l w a ys s o u g ht on an urgent basis. All the points raised in limine are d i s m i s s ed w i th 6 5% costs only on a c c o u nt of the slipshod nature of the preparation of the applicant's papers. T he C o u rt orders that the point raised w h i ch h a p p e ns not to be c o m m on c a u se regarding m e a ns of access to the applicant's Geld be referred to oral e v i d e n ce as the C o u rt finds it impossible to resolve it on the p a p e rs as they stand. J U D GE 18th M a y, 1998 For Applicant: M rs Kotelo For R e s p o n d e n t: Mr Mafantiri