Sekhonyana and Others v Attorney-General and Others (CIV/APN 181 of 96) [1996] LSHC 84 (30 August 1996)

Sekhonyana and Others v Attorney-General and Others (CIV/APN 181 of 96) [1996] LSHC 84 (30 August 1996)

The applicants failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for review of taxation under Rule 49(1), did not object to any items before the taxing master, did not request a stated case within the prescribed period, and provided no explanation or application for condonation. The bills of costs were properly served on the attorney of record. There is no merit in the complaint regarding multiple bills of costs. The application is dismissed for non-compliance with the rules and as an abuse of court process.

Citation
[1996] LSHC 84
Parties
Applicant: Evaristus R. Sekhonyana; Applicant: Abiel Moupo Mathaba; Applicant: Dr. Ebenezer Malie; Applicant: Lekhoana Jonathan; Applicant: Teboho Vincent Lephema; Applicant: Nathanael Nkuatsana; Applicant: Ranthomeng Matete; Applicant: Pitso Augustine Tsotsi; Applicant: Jeremia Morena Letsie; Applicant: Tšolo LELALA; Applicant: Felix Thabo Putsoa; Applicant: Makhabane Hlasa Molapo; Applicant: Phale Mokoena; Applicant: Emmanuel Lephele; Applicant: Liau Molete; Applicant: Emmanuel Molefi Thene; Applicant: Justin Metsing Lekhanya; Applicant: Flora Selloane Seleso; Applicant: Khomomo Sotho Molapo; Applicant: Michael Phoso Moketa; Applicant: Bokang Lelimo; Applicant: Mokhofu Simon Hlalele; Applicant: Peter Khamane; Applicant: Kali Masiloane; Applicant: Khetla Thabo J. Rakhetla; Applicant: Vitalis Kefuoe 'Ngoae; Applicant: Ramabilikoe G. Mashape; Respondent: Attorney-General; Respondent: Registrar of the High Court; Respondent: Deputy Sheriff
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
30 August 1996
Case Number
CIV/APN 181 of 96
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Taxation of Costs
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Costs, Election Petitions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Costs Election Petitions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evaristus R. Sekhonyana

Applicant

Abiel Moupo Mathaba

Applicant

Dr. Ebenezer Malie

Applicant

Lekhoana Jonathan

Applicant

Teboho Vincent Lephema

Applicant

Nathanael Nkuatsana

Applicant

Ranthomeng Matete

Applicant

Pitso Augustine Tsotsi

Applicant

Jeremia Morena Letsie

Applicant

Tšolo LELALA

Applicant

Felix Thabo Putsoa

Applicant

Makhabane Hlasa Molapo

Applicant

Phale Mokoena

Applicant

Emmanuel Lephele

Applicant

Liau Molete

Applicant

Emmanuel Molefi Thene

Applicant

Justin Metsing Lekhanya

Applicant

Flora Selloane Seleso

Applicant

Khomomo Sotho Molapo

Applicant

Michael Phoso Moketa

Applicant

Bokang Lelimo

Applicant

Mokhofu Simon Hlalele

Applicant

Peter Khamane

Applicant

Kali Masiloane

Applicant

Khetla Thabo J. Rakhetla

Applicant

Vitalis Kefuoe 'Ngoae

Applicant

Ramabilikoe G. Mashape

Applicant

Attorney-General

Respondent

Registrar of the High Court

Respondent

Deputy Sheriff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Taxation of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants complied with procedural requirements for review of taxation of costs
  2. 2 Whether multiple bills of costs could be taxed against applicants
  3. 3 Whether service of bills of costs was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for review of taxation under Rule 49(1), did not object to any items before the taxing master, did not request a stated case within the prescribed period, and provided no explanation or application for condonation. The bills of costs were properly served on the attorney of record. There is no merit in the complaint regarding multiple bills of costs. The application is dismissed for non-compliance with the rules and as an abuse of court process.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 49(1) of the High Court Rules and absence of condonation application.
  • Rule nisi discharged with costs.