Nkhasi v Nkhasi (CIV/A 6 of 88) [1991] LSCA 125 (26 September 1991)

C I V / 4 / 6 / 88 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the Appeal of : M A L E F A NE NKHASI A p p e l l a nt v S E E P H E P HE NKHASI R e s p o n d e nt R E A S O NS FOR J U D G M E NT Filed by the H o n. M r. J u s t i ce M . L. Lehottla on the 26th day of S e p t e m b e r, 1991 A f t er hearing a d d r e s s es by the p a r t i e s' r e s p e c t i ve Counsel and having perused the r e c o r d, this Court dismissed the appeal and r e s e r v ed r e a s o ns for that d e c i s i o n. T h e se now are the r e a s o ns : Reading from the record it seems that the Judicial C o m m i s s i o n er issued his c e r t i f i c a te on 28th A p r i l, 1 9 8 6. It a p p e a rs that the grounds of appeal were not filed within the time specified in the r u l e s. See Section 2 8 ( 3 ) ( b) of the Central and Local C o u r ts P r o c l a m a t i on N o . 62 of 1958 read with C. of A. (CIV) N o. 20 of 1987 M o t l a l e n t oa v. M o n y a ne and Another ( u n r e p o r t e d ). When applying for c o n d o n a t i on of late hearing of this appeal it appears that Mr. M a q u tu maintained, and it was common c a u s e, that d e s p i te eight y e a rs of its e x i s t e n ce /the -2- t he r u le r e f e r r ed to a b o ve has not b e en f o l l o w ed until M o t l a l e n t o a. M r. M a q u tu p r a y ed t h at the m a t t er be p o s t p o n ed so as to be a f f o r d ed an o p p o r t u n i ty to p r e p a re a r g u m e nt in s u p p o rt of c o n d o n a t i o n. The C o u rt a c c o r d i n g ly g r a n t ed p o s t p o n e m e nt b ut put t he a p p e l l a nt to t e r ms t h at his a p p l i c a t i on for c o n d o n a t i on be m o v ed w i t h in two weeks of A u g u st 1 9 8 8. I h a ve p e r u s ed t he r e c o rd a n d, r e g r et to n o te t h at t he a b o ve o r d er a p p e a rs not to h a ve b e en c o m p l i ed w i t h. On t h is b a s is a l o ne it w o u ld seem t h e re is no appeal p r o p e r ly b r o u g ht b e f o re C o u rt t h us it o u g ht to be d i s m i s s e d. H o w e v er t h is a s p e ct of the m a t t er w as not r e f e r r ed to or e v en a l l u d ed to by C o u n s el w ho a p p e a r ed b e f o re me on 17th S e p t e m b e r, 1 9 9 1. It w o u ld t h us be o n ly fair and p r o p er for t he C o u rt to deal w i th t h is m a t t er on the b a s is of p o i n ts raised d u r i ng a r g u m e n t. M r s. K o t e lo for t he a p p e l l a nt a r g u ed t h at it is c o m m on c a u se t h at the f i e ld in d i s p u te b e l o n g ed to t he w i d ow w ho had d i v i d ed it a m o ng her s o n s. S he a r g u ed f u r t h er that t he a p p e l l a n t 's m o t h er did not place t he m a t t er b e f o re t he c h i ef for t he T a t t e r 's b l e s s i n g. S he p o i n t ed o ut t h at in all t he C o u r ts b e l ow a f a c t or w h i ch w as o m i t t ed w as m e n t i on of t he f a ct t h at a l l o t m e nt of t he f i e ld w as c o n f i r m ed by t he c h i ef a l o ne i n s t e ad of by him in c o n s u l t a t i on w i th c h i e f 's c o m m i t t e e. S he r e f e r r ed to p a ge 6 of t he r e c o rd w h e re she r e l i ed /on -3- on the s t a t e m e nt by S e e i so that "the c h i ef c o n f i r m e d ". She c a l l ed to a t t e n t i on t h at in s a y i ng "the c h i ef c o n f i r m e d" it is s i g n i f i c a nt that no m e n t i on is m a de of c o m m i t t ee or its r o l e. She p o i n t ed out that the r e s p o n d e n t 's f a t h er acted as a c h i ef since 1 9 2 2. F u r t h er t h at t he d i v i s i on w as e f f e c t ed in 1 9 5 3; w h i le the law r e l a t i ng to a l l o c a t i on of Land c a me into o p e r a t i on in 1 9 7 4. All t he w i d o w 's t h r ee s o ns had been u s i ng the f i e ld w i t h o ut t h e re b e i ng c o n f i r m a t i on till 1 9 7 6. S he a t t a c k ed the fact that c h i ef M o r a m a ng a l o ne e f f e c t ed t he a l l o c a t i o n. R e f e r r i ng to t he Form C i.e. E x h i b it B she said it d o es not tell m u ch for the only s i g n a t u re a p p e a r i ng is t h at of M o r a m a n g. She r e f e r r ed me to p a ge 14 w h e re she s u b m i t t ed r e g a r d i ng E x h i b it " C" t h at it is s i g n i f i c a nt t h at the c h i e f 's c o u rt f o r m ed an o p i n i on that the a l l o c a t i on w as d o ne by Nkhasi and C h i ef M o r a m a ng a l o n e. She p r o p e r ly s u b m i t t ed that t he Plaintiff b e a rs t he b u r d en to s a t i s fy the C o u rt that he has a c a s e. She s u b m i t t ed t h at the L o w er c o u r ts did n ot look to see if the d o c u m e nt of a l l o c a t i on g r o u n d ed a valid a l l o c a t i o n. T he C o u rt w as r e f e r r ed to the Land A ct 1973 S e c t i on 6 ( 4 ). The C o u r t 's a t t e n t i on w as b r o u g ht to S e c t i on 1 2 ( b) s h o w i ng that the c h i ef sits with D e v e l o p m e nt C o m m i t t e e. It w as p r a y ed that b e c a u se the c h i ef sat a l o ne then s e c t i on 1 2 ( 7) should a p p l y. It w as f u r t h er p r a y ed in the a l t e r n a t i ve that the C o u rt of first i n s t a n ce s h o u ld h a ve / g r a n t ed - 4- g r a n t ed a b s o l u t i on f r om t he i n s t a n c e, In a n s w er M r. M a t s au f or t he r e s p o n d e nt s u b m i t t ed t h at C o u n s el f or t he o t h er s i de c o r r e c t ly s t a t ed w h e re t he b u r d en l i e s. H o w e v er t h at o t h er l e a r n ed C o u n s el maintained t h at t he r e s p o n d e n t, t h en Plaintiff, had n ot b e en g i v en t he a l l o c a t i o n. R e l y i ng on t he b a s ic p r i n c i p le n e a t ly s u b s u m ed in t he c o m m on s e n se s a y i n g " w h at is s a u ce f or t he g o o se is s a u ce f or t he g a n d e r" he s u b m i t t ed t h at t he a p p e l l a nt t oo is o b l i g ed to p r o ve t h at t he a l l o c a t i on h ad b e en g r a n t ed to h i m. T he l e a r n ed C o u n s el s u b m i t t ed c o r r e c t l y, in my v i e w, t h at t h e re is no e v i d e n ce t h at t h e re w as v a l id a l l o c a t i on to t he a p p e l l a n t. T he t h r u st of t he a p p e l l a n t 's a r g u m e nt had b e en t h at t he c h i ef c o n f i r m ed t he a l l o c a t i on to r e s p o n d e nt w i t h o ut f u l f i l l i ng t he legal r e q u i r e m e nt t h at t he c o m m i t t ee h as to be i n v o l v ed in t h a t. T h us M r. M a t s au p r o p o s ed to t a ke t he C o u rt t h r o u gh t he r e c o rd to i l l u s t r a te i n s t a n c es w h e re t he p o s i t i on c o n t r a d i c t i ng t he a p p e l l a n t 's c o n t e n t i on is r e v e a l e d. He w as q u i ck to s u b m i t, p r o p e r ly in my v i e w, t h at p r o of of t he e x i s t e n ce of a ny s u ch i n s t a n c es s h o u ld s u f f i ce to d i s p o se of t he a p p e l l a n t 's c o n t e n t i on a nd i n d e ed c a s e. R e f e r e n ce to p a ge 7 s h o ws t h at c h i ef P a ma M o r a m a ng said to t he c o u rt a q uo " On t he 2 1 - 4 - 78 I i n v i t ed c o m m i t t ee m e m b e rs to c o n s i d er t he a p p l i c a t i o ns b e f o re my o f f i c e. T he c o m m i t t ee had no o b j e c t i on to a l l ot ( s i c) . to and on t h at d ay I o r d e r ed P h i l l ip to m e a s u re t he w i d th and l e n g th of t he field....." Plaintiff U n d er c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on at p a ge 8 M o r a m a ng a n s w e r ed " T he c o m m i t t ee a l l o t t ed it ( f i e l d) to Plaintiff," / L e a r n ed - 5- L e a r n ed C o u n s el for the r e s p o n d e nt s u b m i t t ed t h at t h e re was no s u g g e s t i on that this w i t n e ss was lying w h en he said the c o m m i t t ee c o n s i s t i ng of m e m b e rs named in his e v i d e n c e - i n - c h i e f, i.e. N t s a la N k h a s i, L e b u s e t sa N k h a s i, M a t e te S e e i so and P h i l ip Pama the s e c r e t a ry a l l o c a t ed the l a n d. See p a ge 7. T h us on p a ge 7 t h e re has been p r o of of t e s t i m o ny to the p r e s e n ce of the c o m m i t t ee w h i le on p a ge 8 t h e re is p r o of that the c o m m i t t ee a c t u a l ly d e l i b e r a t ed and m a de a d e c i s i o n. T h is w o u ld tend to b e l ie t he a p p e l l a n t 's c o n t e n t i on that a ny of t he a b o ve t h i n gs is l a c k i n g. In r e s p o n se to the c o n t e n t i on t h at the a p p e l l a nt or his r e p r e s e n t a t i ve in the C o u rt of f i r st i n s t a n ce did not c h a l l e n ge as u n t r ue the s t a t e m e nt t h at the named c o m m i t t ee m e m b e rs r e a c h ed t h e ir d e c i s i on with t he c h i e f, M r s. K o t e lo p o i n t ed out that the a p p e l l a nt being a l a y m an s h o u ld not be t r e a t ed as if he is a l a w y er and r e q u i r ed to put his c a se to the o t h er side in the m a n n er of a trained legal p r a c t i t i o n e r. But in C. of A . ( C I V) N o .5 of 1 9 88 L e t l a t sa vs L e t l a t sa ( u n r e p o r t e d) at 5 it is said : When t h at h a p p e ns the d i s p u t es are " P u t t i ng a v e r s i on f r e q u e n t ly e l i c i ts a d v e r se or very a d v e r se a n s w e rs as h a p p e n ed in t h is c a s e. f u r t h er c l a r i f i e d. An a d v e r se a n s w er m ay e i t h er be left to s t a n d, at the c r o s s - e x a m i n e r 's p e r i l, or he m ay seek to u n do or w a t er it down by f u r t h er c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n. w h at t he g a me is a b o u t. M r. M a q u tu claimed t h at t h is h a p p e n ed b e c a u se of the i n e x p e r i e n ce of t he c r o s s - e x a m i n e r. T h is m ay or m ay not be s o, but if he was i n e x p e r i e n c ed t h at f a ct should not be Plaintiff. v i s i t ed upon the M r. M a q u t u 's a t t e m pt to m a ke a v i r t ue of the f a ct t h at t h e se d a m n i ng a n s w e rs w e re e l i c i t ed in c r o s s- If e x a m i n a t i on is w i t h o ut any s u b s t a n ce w h a t e v e r. a n y t h i n g, a n s w e rs so s o l i c i t ed m ay c a r ry m o re w e i g ht than t h o se g i v en in c h i e f ", (my u n d e r l i n i n g ), T h at is l a r g e ly In the r e s u lt /I find -6- I f i nd t h at the q u o t a t i on a b o ve is c l o s e ly r e l a t ed to t he i s s ue t h at M r s. K o t e lo s o u g ht to p e r s u a de this doubt to o v e r l o ok in the i n s t a nt a p p e a l, In fairness to her she c o n f e s s ed her i g n o r a n ce of t he a u t h o r i ty c i t ed a b o ve w h en t he C o u rt asked if she had had c o n s i d e r a t i on of t he p r i n c i p le it e s p o u s e s. T he a p p e l l a nt n e v er e v en g a ve e v i d e n ce in the C o u rt a q u o. True e n o u gh he W as e n t i t l ed to h a ve s o m e o ne to p r o s e c u te t he c a se and c o n d u ct it on his b e h a lf but n ot v e r b a l ly to i m p e r s o n a te him. On t he g r o u n ds t h at t he r e c o rd b e l i es t he a p p e l l a n t 's c o n t e n t i on t h is a p p e al o u g ht to be d i s m i s s e d, It is so o r d e r e d. C o s ts are a w a r d ed to t he r e s p o n d e n t. J U D GE 2 6 th S e p t e m b e r. 1991 F or A p p e l l a nt : M r s. K o t e lo F o re R e s p o n d e nt : M r. M a t s au