Lepota v Hyland (CIV/APN 280 of 87) [1991] LSCA 116 (16 September 1991)

C I V / A P N / 2 8 0 / 87 IN THE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In t he a p p l i c a t i on of : W I L L I AM C L E M E NT L E P O TA A p p l i c a nt v IVAN H Y L A ND R e s p o n d e nt J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by t he H o n. M r. J u s t i ce M . L. L e h o h la on t he 16th d ay of S e p t e m b e r, 1991 W i th c o m m e n d a b le and t e r se l u c i d i ty M r. M a t o o a ne f or t he a p p l i c a nt d r ew t he a t t e n t i on of t he C o u rt to t he f a ct t h at w h at is to be d e c i d ed in t h is a p p l i c a t i on is w h e t h er t he q u e s t i on of p r e s c r i p t i on raised by t he r e s p o n d e nt can t r u ly stand in t he l i g ht of t he f a ct t h at such p r e s c r i p t i on p e r t a i ns to the S o u th A f r i c an L a w. T he S o u th A f r i c an s t a t u te on w h i ch the a p p l i c a nt r e l i es is A ct N o. 68 of 1 9 69 S e c t i on 1 2 ( 3) t h e r e of r e a d i n g :- " W h en p r e s c r i p t i on b e g i ns to run .... a d e bt s h a ll not be d e e m ed to be d ue until t he c r e d i t or h as k n o w l e d ge of t he i d e n t i ty of t he d e b t or and of t he f a c ts f r om w h i ch t he d e bt a r i s es : P r o v i d ed t h at a c r e d i t or shall be d e e m ed to h a ve such k n o w l e d ge if he c o u ld h a ve a c q u i r ed it by e x e r c i s i ng r e a s o n a b le c a r e ". R e f e r r i ng to the f a c ts t he l e a r n ed C o u n s el c r i s p ly / o u t l i n ed - 2- o u t l i n ed t h em as f o l l o ws :- F i r st t h at t he r e s p o n d e nt t h r o u gh a f i rm k n o wn as P a n d o ra M o t o rs sued t he a p p l i c a n t. T he l e a r n ed C o u n s el f u r t h er explained t h at it w as at t he s t a ge of s e q u e s t r a t i on t h at t he d e bt had b e en c e d ed to t he r e s p o n d e n t. T h is s t a te of affairs, t he l e a r n ed C o u n s el s u b m i t t e d, o n ly c a me to be k n o wn by t he a p p l i c a nt a f t er t he d e bt had p r e s c r i b e d. He a c c o r d i n g ly a r g u ed t h at t he a p p l i c a nt c o u l d n 't h a ve k n o wn t h at t he d e bt had b e en c e d ed to t he r e s p o n d e nt u n t il 1 9 8 5. Mr M a t o o a ne a r g u ed in t he a l t e r n a t i ve t h at t he C o u rt s h o u ld d e c i de w h i ch l aw is a p p l i c a b le in t h is c a s e, p o i n t i ng o ut t h at t he c o n t r a ct w as e n t e r ed i n to in t he R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca and t he d e bt c e d ed t h e r e. He b r o u g ht to t he C o u r t 's a t t e n t i on t he f a ct t h at t he v e h i c le (the s u b j e ct of an e a r l i er c o n t r a ct of s a l e) w as d e t a i n ed in S o u th A f r i ca w i t h o ut a W a r r a nt of R e p o s s e s s i o n. A w a r r a nt to t h at e f f e ct w as s e c u r ed t wo m o n t hs l a t er t he e f f e ct of w h i ch w as to l e g i t i m i se t he u n l a w f ul d e t e n t i o n. T he a p p l i c a nt t h us claimed t he l o ss of e a r n i n gs f or t he t wo m o n t hs d u r i ng w h i ch t he d e t e n t i on of t he v e h i c le w as w i t h o ut w a r r a n t. H a v i ng d o na t h is he s o u g ht to p e r s u a de t he C o u rt by r e f e r e n ce to P r i v a te I n t e r n a t i o n al L aw by F o r s y th and B e n n et t h at t he p r o p er law to a p p ly is t he lex f o ri as against t he lex Loci d e l i c t i. W i th r e f e r e n ce to p a ge 2 85 of t he a b o ve b o ok M r. M a t o o a ne s o u g ht to i n d i c a te t h at t h e re is no c ut and d ry r u le as to w h at l aw to a p p l y, f or as F o r s y th et al s h ow : / ( in - 3- (in M ' E l r oy vs M ' A l l i s t er 1 9 49 S . C. 1 1 0) " T he w i d o w, in h er c a p a c i ty as e x e c u t r ix of claims her h u s b a n d 's e s t a t e, i n s t i t u t ed t h r ee against F i r s t, r e l y i ng t he d r i v er in S c o t l a n d. on t he r u le of E n g l i sh l aw ( b ut n ot S c o t s) t h at t he d e c e a s e d 's c a u se of a c t i on s u r v i v ed to h e r, s he s u ed on h is b e h a l f. S e c o n d l y, s he claimed s o l a t i um w h i ch s he w as e n t i t l ed to u n d er S c o ts b ut n ot E n g l i sh l a w. A nd t h i rd s he s u ed f or f u n e r al e x p e n s e s, claim on h er H er f i r st claim failed f or h u s b a n d 's b e h a lf w as n ot a c t i o n a b le u n d er t he lex f o r i; h er claim f or a s o l a t i um failed t oo f or it w as n ot a c t i o n a b le u n d er t he l ex loci O n ly h er claim f or f u n e r al e x p e n s es d e l i c t i. w as c o m m on to b o th E n g l i sh a nd S c o ts l a w; s he s u c c e e d ed a nd w as a w a r d ed a p a l t ry £40 d a m a g e s !" At p a ge 2 86 t he l e a r n ed a u t h o rs go f u r t h er to s a y :- " F or t he t i me b e i ng it is s u f f i c i e nt to r e m a rk t h at w h e re Plaintiff and d e f e n d a nt h a ve a c o m m on r e s i d e n c e, d o m i c i l e, n a t i o n a l i ty a nd s o me o t h er link between them - such as being travellers in t he s a me v e h i c l e, as w as t he c a se in B a b c o ck vs J a c k s on a nd M ' E l r oy vs M ' A l l i s t er - t he c a se f or deviation from the lex loci delicti is strong." T h us M r. M a t o o a ne s u b m i t t ed t h at t he lex loci d e l i c ti d o c t r i ne l e a ds to b i z a r re r e s u l ts t h e r e f o re t he C o u rt s h o u ld a v o id its s t r i ct a p p l i c a t i on in t h is c a se as it w o u ld lead to i n j u s t i ce b e c a u se t he claim h as l a p s ed in t he R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca by v i r t ue of S e c t i on 11 of A ct 68 of 1 9 69 s t a t i ng " P e r i o ds of p r e s c r i p t i on of d e b ts shall be t he f o l l o w i ng - ( a) ( b) (c) and (d) save where an Act of Parliament provides otherwise, three years in respect of any other debt". /I was -4- I w as r e f e r r ed to C h a p l in vs B o ys 1971 AC 3 56 in an e n d e a v o ur to i l l u s t r a te to me t h at e v en t he H o u se of L o r ds h a ve r e c o g n i s ed t h at t he lex loci d e l i c ti is n ot f l e x i b le e n o u g h. At t h is s t a ge I m u st c o n f e ss t he p e r s p i c u i ty of M r. M a t o o a n e 's a r g u m e nt had b e c o me s o m e w h at m u d d i ed to me and r e g r e t t a b ly l o st s o me of i ts i n i t i al l u s t r e. In r e s p o n se to t he f o r e g o i ng M r. H a r l ey f or t he r e s p o n d e nt o u t l i n ed t he f a c ts as f o l l o ws :- F i r s t, t h at P a n d o ra M o t o rs w as a c o m p a ny o w n ed by t he r e s p o n d e nt in t he R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i c a. T h is c o m p a ny s o u g ht and obtained j u d g m e nt against t he a p p l i c a nt in f o ur c a s es in 1 9 8 1. In 1 9 85 t he r e s p o n d e nt p u r c h a s ed t he claims of P a n d o ra M o t o r s. T he a p p l i c a nt t r i ed to h a ve t he a p p l i c a t i o ns r e s c i n d ed b ut to no a v a i l. H e n ce t h is a p p l i c a t i o n. T he a p p l i c a nt s a ys he s u f f e r ed d a m a g es in S o u th A f r i ca as a r e s u lt of a t t a c h m e nt of h is v e h i c le f or t wo m o n t hs by t he r e s p o n d e n t. It f o l l o ws t h e r e f o re t h at if t he d e l i ct o c c u r r ed it w as in S o u th A f r i ca t h at it d i d. T he f a c ts r e v e al t h at a L e s o t ho N a t i o n a l, d o m i c i l ed in L e s o t ho is l o c k ed in t h is d i s p u te w i th a S o u th A f r i c an d o m i c i l ed in t he R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i c a. T he q u e s t i on t h at i m m e d i a t e ly l e a ps to m i nd is : will the courts in Lesotho entertain damages claim arising in the Republic of South Africa by virtue of the jurisdiction t he L e s o t ho C o u rt h as a c q u i r ed o v er t he R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca c i t i z en by r e a s on of t he a t t a c h m e nt of d e b ts w h i ch a r o se in t he R e p u b l i c. S u r e ly in s u ch a c a se t he L e s o t ho / C o u rt - 5- C o u rt w o u ld h a ve to a p p ly t he Tex loci d e l i c ti of t he R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i c a. M r. H a r l ey s u b m i t t ed t h at if t h is w e re to be so t h en t h e re w o u l d n 't be a ny c a se to e n t e r t a in in t he a p p l i c a n t 's b e n e f it b e c a u se t he d a m a g es h a ve p r e s c r i b ed b o th in L e s o t ho a nd in R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i c a. In r e s p e ct of S o u th A f r i c an L aw t he c a u se of a c t i on t o ok p l a ce on 2 nd S e p t e m b er 1 9 82 a nd a c c o r d i n g ly p r e s c r i b ed on 2 nd S e p t e m b er 1 9 85 b e c a u se t he r u le p r o v i d es t h at a claim f or d a m a g es p r e s c r i b es w i t h in t h r ee y e a rs of t he d e bt b e c o m i ng d u e. In r e s p e ct of L e s o t ho t he c a u se of a c t i on b e c a me e x t i n ct b e c a u se t he a p p l i c a b le l aw is t h at in S o u th A f r i c a. I s h o u ld i n d i c a te t h at a f f i d a v i ts s h ow t h at t he v e h i c le w as t a k en by t he a p p l i c a nt f or a s s e s s m e nt of i ts v a l ue at F i c k s b u rg L . T. M o t o rs on 5 th A p r i l, 1 9 8 2. T he r e s p o n d e nt s e i z ed it w i t h o ut a ny l a w f ul w a r r a nt t i ll 2 nd S e p t e m b e r, 1 9 82 w h en he obtained o n e. H ow t h is p e r i od b e t w e en A p r il and S e p t e m b er is r e c k o n ed by b o th C o u n s el to c o n s t i t u te t wo m o n t hs e s c a p es m e. H o w e v er at p a ge 59 t he r e s p o n d e nt a d m i ts t a k i ng p o s s e s s i on of t he v e h i c le at F i c k s b u rg u n t il 2 nd S e p t e m b er 1 9 82 b ut s t r e n u o u s ly d e n i es t h at s u ch p o s s e s s i on w i t h in S o u th A f r i ca w as i l l e g al t h us f u r t h er d e n i es t h at d u r i ng s u ch p e r i od t he a p p l i c a nt s u f f e r ed a ny d a m a g e s. T he r e s p o n d e nt f u r t h er a v e rs t h at he t o ok t h at v e h i c le on s p e c i f ic a u t h o r i s a t i on by t he a p p l i c a nt w ho r e q u e s t ed t h at r e s p o n d e nt s h o u ld h o ld t he v e h i c le on h is b e h a lf f or s a f e k e e p i ng u n t il s u ch t i me as t he a r r e a rs h ad b e en paid. T he a p p l i c a nt had b r o u g ht t he i n s t a nt a p p l i c a t i on in t e r ms of R u le 6 ( 1 ) , ( 2) a nd ( 3) w h i ch p r o v i de r e s p e c t i v e ly t h at / t he C o u rt - 6- t he C o u rt m ay g r a nt l e a ve for p r o p e r ty of a p e r e g r i n us w h i ch is in L e s o t ho to be a t t a c h e d, f or p u r p o s es of f o u n d i ng j u r i s d i c t i o n , if t he C o u rt is s a t i s f i ed f u r t h er ( a) t h at t he p r o p e r ty b e l o n gs to the p e r a g r i n u s, (b) t h at t he a p p l i c a nt is an i n c o la ( c) t h at a p p l i c a nt has p r i ma f a c ie c a u se of a c t i on against thy p e r e g r i n u s. T he r e s p o n d e nt in t u rn m a de an a p p l i c a t i on to t h is C o u rt in t e r ms of R u le 6 ( 4) p r o v i d i ng t h at " t he p a r e g r i n us may at any t i me b e f o re j u d g m e nt to s et a p p ly to c o u rt on n o t i ce to t he a s i de t he a t a c h m e nt on g o od c a u se s h o wn and t he c o u rt m ay made any o r d er it d e e ms f i t ". Plaintiff It w as a r g u ed f or t he r e s p o n d e nt t h at t he a p p l i c a nt failed to c o m p ly w i th t he rile r e q u i r i ng that he s h o u ld s a t i s fy t he c o u rt t h at he is an i n c o l a. M r. M a t o o a ne s o u g ht to s h ow t h at t h is h as b e en m a de o ut at p a ge 30 w h e re it c o u ld be i n f e r r ed f r om t he a d d r e ss g i v en of t he a p p l i c a nt d e s c r i b ed as a M o s o t ho mal a d u lt of L i t h a b i n e ng M a s e ru t h at he is an i n c o l a. I d o u bt t h at m o re s u p p ly of a p o s t al or r e s i d e n t i al a d d r e ss s u f f i c es to e s t a b l i sh t h at o ne is an i n c o l a. In any e v e nt M r, H a r l ey w as d i c a te t h at e v en t h at r e f e r e n ce to a p p l i c a nt as a M o s o t ho w a le a d u lt of L i t h a b a n e ng M a s e ru w i th P o s t al a d d r e ss P. O. Box 1 2 46 M a s e ru h as n ot b e en m a de in t he i n s t a nt a p p l i c a t i o n, b ut r e l a t es to a c o py of a D e c l a r a t i on c o n c e r n i ng o ne of t he p r e v i o us a c t i o ns b e t w e en t he p a r t i e s. W i th r e g a rd to t he a t t a c h m e nt ad f u n d a n d am j u r i s d i c t i o n em I w as r e f e r r ed to H e r b s t e in and v an W i n s en T he C i v il P r a c t i ce / of -7- of the S u p e r i or C o u r ts in South A f r i ca 3rd Ed. p . 7 98 w h e re it is s t a t ed : "The a p p l i c a t i on can be set d o wn in o p en C o u rt in t he usual w a y, but if t h e re is d a n g er in d e l a y, then a p p l i c a t i on can be m a de to a j u d g e. If the a p p l i c a t i on is g r a n t e d, a W r it is d r a wn up and h a n d ed to t he S h e r i f f, who will t h e r e u p on p r o c e ed to a r r e st the person of the d e f e n d a nt or the p r o p e r ty s p e c i f i ed in the W r i t. need not s p e c i fy a r e t u rn day as in t he c a se of a W r it s u s p e c t us de f u ga i s s u ed in t e r ms of the It is n e v e r t h e l e ss o p en to the R u l es of C o u r t. p e r s on a r r e s t ed to m o ve at any t i me to have the W r it set a s i d e ". The Writ C l e a r ly the p r o c e d u re h e re d o es not c o n t e m p l a te a r e t u rn d a y, but g r a n ts the r e m e dy of a m o t i on at any time to h a ve the W r it set a s i d e. The u p s h ot of t he a u t h o r i ty in E s t a te 8 r o w n s t e in vs C o m m i s s i o n er for Inland R e v e n ue 1 9 5 7 ( 3) SA 512 AD at 5 24 s h o ws that an i n c o la is held to be c a p a b le of suing a p a r e g r i n us a f t er a t t a c h m e nt ad f u n d a n d am j u r i s d i c t i o n e m, r e g a r d l e ss of w h e re the c a u se of a c t i on a r o s e. It w as s u b m i t t ed t h at the e f f e ct of t he a t t a c h m e nt is t h e r e f o re that the a p p l i c a nt is e n t i t l ed to sue the r e s p o n d e nt o ut of the H i gh C o u rt of L e s o t h o, r e g a r d l e ss of t he f a ct t h at the c a u se of action a r o se w i t h in t he R e p u b l ic of South A f r i c a. It w o u ld seem i m p o r t a nt t h e r e f o re t h at the a p p l i c a nt is laid u n d er the n e c e s s i ty to s a t i s fy t he C o u rt t h at he has a p r i ma f a c ie c a u se of a c t i o n. I w as r e f e r r ed to Ex P a r te A c r ow E n g i n e e r s ( P t y ) L td 1 9 5 3 ( 1) SA 6 6 2 ( T) w h e re it w as held t h at t he r e m e dy of / a t t a c h m e nt - 8- a t t a c h m e nt ad f u n d a n d am j u r i s d i c t i o n em f or p u r p o s es of c r e a t i ng it w h e re o t h e r w i se s u ch j u r i s d i c t i on m i g ht n ot e x i s t, is an e x c e p t i o n al r e m e dy w h i ch s h o u ld be a p p l i ed w i th c a re and c a u t i o n. T h us t he C o u rt s h o u ld be w a ry a nd n ot g r a nt an o r d er of a t t a c h m e nt if p r i ma f a c ie t he a p p l i c a nt h as n ot m a de o ut h is c a s e. T u r n i ng to t he a p p l i c a n t 's a f f i d a v it M r. H a r l ey i n d i c a t ed t h at o ne l o o ks in v a in f or a s t a t e m e nt t h at t he a p p l i c a nt is an i n c o la of L e s o t h o. L e a r n ed C o u n s el s o u g ht to b r i ng to t he C o u r t 's a t t e n t i on t h at t he a p p l i c a n t 's s u b m i s s i o ns r e g a r d i ng h is c a u se of a c t i on is t h at he h as a g e n u i ne claim against t he r e s p o n d e nt in t e r ms of t he P a r t i c u l a rs of claim m a r k ed " N M 2 ". T he b a is of h is c a u se of a c t i on is r e p e a t ed in b r o ad t e r ms on o a t h, b ut b o i ls d o wn to t he s i m p le a l l e g a t i on t h at on or a b o ut 6th A p r il 1 9 82 a nd at F i c k s b u rg in t he R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i c a, t he r e s p o n d e nt i l l e g a l ly t o ok p o s s e s s i on of t he a p p l i c a n t 's b us a nd remained in i l l e g al p o s s e s s i on t h e r e of u n t il t he 2 nd S e p t e m b er 1 9 8 2, c o n s e q u e nt u p on w h i ch t he a p p l i c a nt s u f f e r ed d a m a g e s. Mr. H a r l ey i n v i t ed t he C o u rt c a m p i ng on t he a p p l i c a n t 's t r a il a nd r e l y i ng on h is v e ry v e r s i on to c o n s i d er if it c an be said he h as m a de o ut a p r i ma f a c ie c a u se of a c t i o n. It w as s u b m i t t ed t h at i n d e ed if t he a p p l i c a n t 's r i g ht of a c t i on h as p r e s c r i b e d, it c a n n ot be said t h at he h as m a de o ut a c a u se of a c t i o n. H o w e v e r, if t he S o u th A f r i c an L aw a p p l i es to t he a p p l i c a n t 's claim, t h en it b e c o m es c l e ar t h at t he S o u th A f r i c an L aw of P r e s c r i p t i on w o u ld a p p ly a nd t h at in t h at c a se t he a p p l i c a nt w o u ld c l e a r ly be o ut of C o u r t. In an e n d e a v o ur to p e r s u a de t he C o u rt t h at in f a ct / t he - 9- t he a p p l i c a b le law is t he S o u th A f r i c an o ne as o p p o s ed to t h at of L e s o t ho w h o se p r e s c r i p t i ve p e r i od in s i m i l ar c i r c u m s t a n c es is 8 i n s t e ad of t h r ow y e a r s, M r. H a r l ey r e f e r r ed t he C o u rt to K u h ne and N a g e l, A . G. Z u r i ch vs A . P . A D i s t r i b u t o r s ( P t y ) L td 1 9 8 1 ( 3) SA 5 36 w h e re a p r i n c i p le to be e x t r a c t ed is t h at t he q u e s t i on of p r e s c r i p t i on is a m a t t er of s u b s t a n t i ve law and that t he lex c a u s a e, i . e. t he L aw of S o u th A f r i ca is t he o ne to be a p p l i ed on t he b a s is t h at t he c a u se of a c t i on a r o se in t h at t e r r i t o r y. I n d e ed it w as h e ld in t h at c a se t h at " it w as s e t t l ed Taw t h at p r o c e d u r al m a t t e rs w e re g o v e r n ed by t he law of t he p l a ce w h e re t he a c t i on w as b r o u g ht (lex f o r i) w h e r e as m a t t e rs of s u b s t a n ce w e re g o v e r n ed by t he p r o p er law of t he t r a n s a c t i on (lex c a u s a e ). e x t i n c t i on (or c r e a t i o n) of a r i g ht by p r e s c r i p t i on w as a m a t t er of s u b s t a n t i ve law and a c c o r d i n g ly t he Tex c a u s ae a p p l i e d. p r e s c r i p t i ve p e r i od of t he lex c a u s ae t h at of t he lex fori claim". F u r t h e r, t h at t he w o u ld a p p ly to F u r t h er t h at and n ot t he Plaintiff's It w o u ld s e em t h en in r & s p a ct of t he i n s t a nt m a t t er t he lex c a u s ae w h i ch t he p e r s u a s i ve f o r ce of t he a b o ve a u t h o r i ty s a ys is a p p l i c a b le is the S o u th A f r i c an and n ot t he lex f o ri w h i ch is t he law of L e s o t h o. T he a b o ve proposition is f u r t h er b u t t r e s s ed by t he a u t h o r i ty in L a c o n i an M a r i t i me E n t e r p r i s es L i m i t ed vs A g r o m ar L i n e as Ltd 1 9 8 6 ( 3) SA 5 09 w h e re at p a ge 521 t he t e xt s a ys : "It s e e ms to be a w e ll s e t t l ed p r i n c i p le of t he P r i v a te I n t e r n a t i o n al L aw of t h is C o u n t ry and many o t h er c o u n t r i es t h at t he C o u rt s h o u ld d i s t i n g u i sh b e t w e en r u l es of p r o c e d u r al l aw and R u l es of s u b s t a n t i ve law and t h at p r o c e d u r al m a t t e rs are g o v e r n ed by t he lex fori w h i l st m a t t e rs of s u b s t a n ce a re g o v e r n ed by t he lex c a u s a e ". / It w o u ld - 1 0- It w o u ld be p r o d u c t i ve to p ay p r o p er a t t e n t i on to a f u r t h er s t a t e m e nt of the l aw e n u n c i a t ed at p a g es 5 23 and 5 24 to t he e f f e ct t h at : " It s e e ms to be s e t t l ed l aw t h at s t a t u t es of l i m i t a t i on m e r e ly b a r r i ng t he r e m e dy a re p a rt of t he l aw of p r o c e d u re w h e r e as t h ey a re p a rt of t he s u b s t a n t i ve l aw if t h ey e x t i n g u i sh a l t o g e t h er t he r i g ht of t he N a g e l 's c a se a nd c a s es t h e re q u o t e d ) :I a g r ee w i th r e s p e ct t h at t he S o u th A f r i c an A ct 68 of 1 9 59 c o n t r a ry to its p r e d e c e s s or is s u b s t a n t i ve in c h a r a c t e r ". Plaintiff ( K u h ne and On t he a b o ve b a s is and b e c a u se t he o w n e r s h ip of t h e se claims is in a ny e v e nt n ot d i s p u t ed it s e e ms o n ly p r o p er t h at t he a p p l i c a t i on by t he r e s p o n d e nt to s et a s i de t he a t t a c h m e nt on h is g o o ds o u g ht to s u c c e ed w i th c o s t s. T he C o u rt so f i n d s. J U D GE 1 6 th S e p t e m b er 1991 F or A p p l i c a nt : M r. M a t o o a ne F or R e s p o n d e nt : M r. H a r l ey