Issa and Another v Mohaleroe Sello & Co and Another (CIV/APN 338 of 98) [1998] LSCA 102 (6 November 1998)

C I V / A P N / 3 3 8 / 98 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the matter between R A F IC M O K H E T HI P A U L O SI ( B o y - B o y) M O S TA L E T S IE I S SA 1st Applicant 2 nd Applicant a nd M O H A L E R OE S E L LO & C O. T HE D E P U TY S H E R I FF 1st R e s p o n d e nt 2 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 o u r a b le M r. J u s t i ce M . M. R a m o d i b e di on t he 6 th d ay of N o v e m b er 1 9 9 8. T h is is an application for interdict a nd o t h er ancillary p r a y e r s. In o r d er to fully a p p r e c i a te t he i s s u es that arise f or d e t e r m i n a t i on in this m a t t er it is c o n v e n i e n t, I t h i n k, to b e g in at t he b e g i n n i n g, that is to s ay w i th C i v / A p n / 3 1 0 / 96 in w h i ch this C o u rt g a ve j u d g m e nt in f a v o ur of the late T h a bo Z a c h a r ia L e t s ie (the 2 nd A p p l i c a n t 's f a t h e r) as a g a i n st t he 1st A p p l i c a nt a nd o ne M a f o n y o ko Letsie ( T h a bo Z a c h a r ia Letsie's f a t h e r) in a m a t t er i n v o l v i n g, inter alia, e j e c t m e n t. In s um t he final o r d er of C o u rt w as to t he f o l l o w i ng effect: 1. T he p u r p o r t ed sale by t he s a id M a f o n y o ko L e t s ie to t he p r e s e nt 1st A p p l i c a nt w as set aside. T h at sale related to t he disputed b u s i n e ss p r e m i s es situated on a certain site at Ha M o t j o k a, T e y a t e y a n e ng in the B e r ea district registered in the n a me of T h a bo Z a c h a r ia Letsie in the D e e ds R e g i s t ry Office, M a s e ru u n d er n u m b er 5 9 21 on t he 1 1 th July, 1 9 6 8. 2. T he present 1st A p p l i c a nt w as interdicted f r om letting, collecting rent f r om tenants in the said p r e m i s es or interfering in a ny m a n n er w h a t s o e v er w i th T h a bo Z a c h a r ia Letsie's rights of o w n e r s h ip of the s a me s a ve by d ue p r o c e ss of l a w. 3. A ny a g r e e m e nt that m i g ht h a ve b e en e n t e r ed into b e t w e en M a f o n y o ko Letsie a nd the p r e s e nt 1st A p p l i c a nt w i th respect to the said p r e m i s es w as set aside. 4. T he present 1st A p p l i c a nt w as specifically ejected f r om t he p r e m i s es in question. It is also i m p o r t a nt to b e ar in m i nd that in m a k i ng the o r d er referred to a b o v e, this C o u rt also d i s m i s s ed M a f o n y o ko Letsie's c o u n t er a p p l i c a t i on for an o r d er that T h a bo Z a c h a r ia Letsie be interdicted a nd restrained f r om interfering in a ny w ay w h a t s o e v er w i th M a f o n y o ko Letsie's o c c u p a t i on of the d i s p u t ed site. It is further pertinent to b e ar in m i nd that in g r a n t i ng t he a b o ve m e n t i o n ed o r d er in f a v o ur of T h a bo Z a c h a r ia Letsie this C o u rt specifically m a de a finding that the p r e s e nt 1st A p p l i c a nt a nd the said M a f o n y o ko Letsie h ad in fact c o l l u d ed w i th e a ch o t h er a nd a c t ed in b ad faith in their a t t e m pt to sell the d i s p u t ed p r e m i s es to the 1st A p p l i c a nt herein. T h at o r d er w as n e v er a p p e a l ed against. I s h o u ld m e n t i on that T h a bo Z a c h a r ia Letsie w as duly represented by the 1st R e s p o n d e nt in the said C i v / A p n / 3 1 0 / 9 6. N ow it is c o m m on c a u se that p u r s u a nt to the a b o ve m e n t i o n ed final o r d er of this C o u rt a nd on the 2 0 th M a r ch 1 9 98 T h a bo Z a c h a r ia Letsie's attorneys n a m e ly the 1st R e s p o n d e nt herein issued o ut a W a r r a nt of E j e c t m e nt w i th this C o u rt the effect of w h i ch w as to p ut the attorneys in q u e s t i on into p o s s e s s i on of the said p r e m i s es by r e m o v i ng t h e r e f r om t he p r e s e nt 1st Applicant. A p p a r e n t ly this w as b e c a u se T h a bo Z a c h a r ia Letsie h i m s e lf lived in t he R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca a nd i n d e ed this is c o m m on c a u s e. M e a n w h i le the parties are on c o m m on g r o u nd that the p r e s e nt 1st A p p l i c a nt h as n e v er c o m p l i ed w i th the o r d er of the C o u rt referred to a b o v e. It is i n d e ed n ot d e n i ed that he h as "resisted" all a t t e m p ts by t he D e p u t y - S h e r i ff to eject h i m. In this r e g a rd it is n e c e s s a ry to refer to p a r a g r a ph 3.4 of t he a n s w e r i ng affidavit of K h a l a ki Sello w h e r e in he states as f o l l o w s- " 3 .4 I a v er that 1st applicant h as n e v er c o m p l i ed w i th the said e j e c t m e nt o r d er b ut h a s, on the contrary, resisted all a t t e m p ts by the deputy-sheriff to eject h i m. I respectfully s u b m it that the p u r p o r t ed lease a g r e e m e nt b e t w e en the applicants is b ut a further a t t e m pt to frustrate the said j u d g m e nt a c o py of w h i ch is a n n e x ed hereto m a r k ed " K S 3" (sic)." T he p u r p o r t ed lease a g r e e m e nt referred to in this p a r a g r a ph w as apparently entered into by a nd b e t w e en the A p p l i c a n ts in respect of the s a me d i s p u t ed site on the 1st d ay of J a n u a ry 1 9 98 n o t w i t h s t a n d i ng the aforesaid C o u rt O r d e r. N ow it is against the a b o ve m e n t i o n ed b a c k g r o u nd that the A p p l i c a n ts h a ve applied to this C o u rt on a certificate of u r g e n cy for an o r d er in the f o l l o w i ng t e r m s: " 1. T h at a R U LE N I SI be issued calling u p on the R e s p o n d e n ts to s h ow c a u s e, if a n y, on a date a nd t i me to be d e t e r m i n ed by this H o n o u r a b le court w h y- (a) T he 1st R e s p o n d e nt shall not be interdicted forthwith f r om interfering w i th A p p l i c a n ts o c c u p a t i on of site N o . 3 68 situated at HA M O T J O KA T E Y A T E Y A N E NG in the district of B e r e a. ( b) T he writ of E j e c t m e nt issued on or a b o ut the 2 3 rd D ay of M a r c h, 1 9 98 shall n ot be set a s i de as an irregular p r o c e s s. ( c) T he 2 nd R e s p o n d e nt shall n ot be interdicted f r om E x e c u t i ng (sic) the said writ p e n d i ng t he d e t e r m i n a t i on of this application. ( d) T he R e s p o n d e n ts shall n ot be o r d e r ed to p ay costs of this application in the e v e nt of a ny o p p o s i t i o n. ( e) A p p l i c a n ts shall n ot be g r a n t ed further a nd or alternative (sic) relief. 2. T h at p r a y er l(c) o p e r a t es w i th i m m e d i a te effect as an interim interdict. 3. D i s p e n s i ng w i th the n o r m al m o de of service as p r e s c r i b ed by t he rules of C o u rt r e g a rd b e i ng h ad to the U r g e n cy of this m a t t e r ." I s h o u ld like to s ay at the outset that this C o u rt is d e e p ly c o n c e r n ed a b o ut the a t t e m pt by the A p p l i c a n ts to r e n d er its o r d er as fully set o ut a b o v e, n u g a t o r y. T he c i r c u m s t a n c es of this c a se h a ve led me to t he inevitable c o n c l u s i on that the failure to c o m p ly w i th the C o u rt O r d er w as i n d e ed deliberate a nd p r e m e d i t a t ed in line w i th the 1st A p p l i c a n t 's " c o l l u s i o n" referred to a b o ve c o u p l ed w i th the u n d e n t ed fact that " t he p u r p o r t ed lease a g r e e m e nt b e t w e en the applicants is b ut a further a t t e m pt to frustrate the said j u d g m e nt ". H e n ce I find that the 2 nd A p p l i c a nt h as h i m s e lf j o i n ed the c o l l u s i on to d e fy the O r d er of this C o u r t. I n d e e d, to be m o re precise, I find that the A p p l i c a n t s' a c t i o ns a m o u nt to c o n t e m p t. N or is it d i s p u t ed that t he c o n t e m pt by the A p p l i c a n ts as stated a b o ve h as n e v er b e en p u r g e d. It is c o n t i n u i ng to d a te a nd in this r e g a rd I h a ve a t t a c h ed d ue w e i g ht to the u n c o n t r o v e r t ed a v e r m e nt of K h a l a ki Sello in p a r a g r a ph 4 of his a n s w e r i ng affidavit to the f o l l o w i ng effect:- "It will be s u b m i t t ed that the application h e r e in is b ut a continuation of the said a t t e m pt to d e f r a ud the d e c e a s e d 's estate." N ow it is trite that the C o u rt will usually refuse to h e ar a p e r s on w ho h as d i s o b e y ed an o r d er of c o u rt until he h as p u r g ed his c o n t e m p t. S ee for e x a m p le DI B o na v DI B o na a nd A n o t h er 1 9 9 3 ( 2) S . A. 6 82 at 6 88 It f o l l o ws f r om the particular c i r c u m s t a n c es of this m a t t er as fully set o ut a b o ve that this is a fit c a s e, I think, w h e re the C o u rt h as a discretion to be e x e r c i s ed judicially a nd n ot arbitrarily or capriciously to r e f u se to entertain A p p l i c a n t s' c l a im on the g r o u nd that their c o n t e m pt is c o n t i n u i ng as it a d m i t t e d ly is a nd on this g r o u nd a l o ne this application further falls to be d i s m i s s ed w i th costs. I n d e ed the C o u rt n e e ds to s e nd o ut a w a r n i ng to litigants that its o r d e rs c a n n ot be cynically d e f i ed w i th i m p u n i ty as this c a se a m p ly d e m o n s t r a t es If the c o n c l u s i on at w h i ch I h a ve arrived so far is right there is no n e ed to go further but it s e e ms to me there is no h a rm in g o i ng further if o n ly to do justice to A p p l i c a n t s' c a se as a w h o l e. W h at h as h a p p e n ed in this c a se is that T h a bo Z a c h a r ia Letsie h as since t he a f o r e s a id final o r d er of this C o u rt s a d ly p a s s ed a w a y. T he C o u rt h as h o w e v er n ot b e en told w h en exactly this w a s. Be that as it m ay his estate is a d m i t t e d ly b e i ng a d m i n i s t e r ed in the R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca a nd K h a l a ki S e l lo of the 1st R e s p o n d e nt f i rm represents that estate's assets in L e s o t h o. T he 2 nd A p p l i c a nt d o es n ot d i s p u te that he is "fully a w a r e" of this state of affairs, n or d o es he d e ny K h a l a ki Sello's d a m a g i ng allegation in p a r a g r a ph 4 that "it is m i s c h i e v o us of h im to try a nd c o n t e nt o t h e r w i s e ." I a c c e pt K h a l a ki Sello's u n c o n t r o v e r t ed version relating to the a d m i n i s t r a t i on of the d e c e a s e d 's estate a nd t he role he p l a ys in it. I n d e ed as I r e ad the A p p l i c a n t s' f o u n d i ng p a p e rs I am a p p a l l ed to n o te that n o w h e re h as the 2 nd A p p l i c a nt disclosed this m a t e r i al fact that t he d e c e a s e d 's estate is b e i ng a d m i n i s t e r ed in the R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca a nd that K h a l a ki Sello of 1st R e s p o n d e n t 's f i rm in fact r e p r e s e n ts the estate in L e s o t h o. As the d e c e a s e d 's heir, the 2 nd A p p l i c a nt m u st h a ve k n o wn a b o ut this state of affairs at the t i me he l a u n c h ed the application. In my v i ew this is material n o n - d i s c l o s u re a nd on this g r o u nd a l o ne the C o u rt is entitled to d i s m i ss the application for i n d e ed it is trite that in ex parte applications the a p p l i c a nt m u st display the u t m o st g o od faith a nd disclose fully a nd fairly all material facts k n o wn to h im failing w h i ch the C o u r t, in the exercise of its judicial discretion m ay d i s m i ss t he application on this g r o u nd a l o n e. S ee T r a k m an NO v L i v s h i tz a nd O t h e rs 1 9 9 5 ( 1) S . A. 2 82 at 2 8 8. N or do I think that it h e l ps for A dv Q h o b e la to a r g ue as s he d id on b e h a lf of the A p p l i c a n ts that no letters of administration h a ve b e en filed in this country. T h is is a factual s u b m i s s i on w h i ch is n ot b a s ed on the p a p e rs b e f o re m e. W h at c o u n s el s u b m i ts therefore is t a n t a m o u nt to g i v i ng e v i d e n ce f r om the b ar w h i ch is totally u n a c c e p t a b l e. In a ny e v e nt I a c c e pt M r. Sello's s u b m i s s i on on b e h a lf of the R e s p o n d e n ts to the effect that strictly s p e a k i ng the q u e s t i on w h e t h er or n ot letters of administration h a ve b e en filed is a m a t t er for the M a s t e r. T he issue c an i n d e ed be raised w i th the latter as a party in s e p a r a te p r o c e e d i n g s. F or t he m o m e nt I am satisfied, as I h a ve stated earlier, that the d e c e a s e d 's estate is b e i ng a d m i n i s t e r ed in the R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca a nd that K h a l a ki Sello of the 1st R e s p o n d e nt firm represents that estate's assets in L e s o t h o. A n n e x t u re " S K 1" is the certificate of a p p o i n t m e nt of V e r n on H i l s on N e u m a nn as the e x e c u t or of the estate in the R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca a nd he h as in turn s i g n ed special p o w er of attorney " S K 2" in f a v o ur of K h a l a ki Sello to r e p r e s e nt the estate in L e s o t h o. L a s t ly it h as b e en s u b m i t t ed on b e h a lf of the A p p l i c a n ts that the d e c e a s e d 's estate falls to be a d m i n i s t e r ed in a c c o r d a n ce w i th S e s o t ho l aw a nd c u s t o m. It w as then s o u g ht to p e r s u a de the C o u rt that the 2 nd A p p l i c a nt b e i ng the heir to the d e c e a s ed h ad the final s ay r e g a r d i ng the d i s p u t ed site. In my v i ew this c o n t e n t i on loses sight of the fact that the estate in question is b e i ng administered in the R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca in t e r ms of the l a ws of that country. In a ny e v e nt the contention further loses sight of S e c t i on 3 ( b) of the A d m i n i s t r a t i on of Estates P r o c l a m a t i on 19 of 1 9 35 w h i ch p r o v i d es as f o l l o w s- " 3. T h is P r o c l a m a t i on shall n ot a p p ly - ( a) ( b) to the estates of A f r i c a ns w h i ch shall c o n t i n ue to be a d m i n i s t e r ed in a c c o r d a n ce w i th the prevailing A f r i c an l aw a nd c u s t om of the Territory: P r o v i d ed that s u ch l aw a nd c u s t om shall n ot a p p ly to the estates of A f r i c a ns w ho h a ve b e en s h o wn to the satisfaction of the M a s t er to h a ve a b a n d o n ed tribal c u s t om a nd a d o p t ed a E u r o p e an m o de of life, a nd w h o, if m a r r i e d, h a ve m a r r i ed u n d er E u r o p e an l a w ." I c o n s i d er that in o r d er for the A p p l i c a n ts to s u c c e ed in their c o n t e n t i on it w o u ld h a ve to be s h o wn on the facts that the d e c e a s ed h ad led a c u s t o m a ry m o de of life a nd h ad n ot a d o p t ed a E u r o p e an w ay of living. A l t h o u gh these issues h a ve not b e en c a n v a s s ed in this c a se I am inclined to the v i ew that the fact that the d e c e a s e d 's estate is a d m i t t e d ly b e i ng a d m i n i s t e r ed in the R e p u b l ic of S o u th Africa in t e r ms of S e c t i on 4 ( 1) of the R e g u l a t i o ns f r a m ed u n d er the p r o v i s i on of S e c t i on 2 3 ( 1 0) of A ct 38 of 1 9 27 is i n d e ed a s t r o ng indication that the d e c e a s ed h ad a b a n d o n ed c u s t o m a ry m o de of life a nd h ad a d o p t ed a E u r o p e an w ay of living. T h is is the m o st r e a s o n a b le i n f e r e n ce to be d r a wn f r om t he history of the m a t t er as for e x a m p le the fact that t he d e c e a s ed w as registered o w n er of t he d i s p u t ed site situated in an u r b an a r ea T he n a me Z a c h a r ia also s u g g e s ts that he w as a Christian. At a ny rate, e v en if 1 m ay be w r o ng in the v i ew that I t a ke of t he m a t t e r, w h at h as g i v en rise to the d e e p e st perturbation a nd g r a ve c o n c e rn in my m i nd is the fact that the 2 nd A p p l i c a nt s h o u ld a p p a r e n t ly bless or at the v e ry least a c q u i e s ce to the a d m i n i s t r a t i on of the d e c e a s e d 's estate in t he R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca b ut at the s a me t i me resisting a t t e m p ts by the e x e c u t or of t he estate to get h o ld of the estate's assets in L e s o t h o. T h i s, I c o n s i d e r, is t a n t a m o u nt to s y p h o n i ng o ff t he assets to the p r e j u d i ce of t he creditors. It is the d u ty of the C o u rt to p r e v e nt this. In all the c i r c u m s t a n c es of the c a se therefore 1 think there is right in refusing this application. A c c o r d i n g ly t he R u le is d i s c h a r g ed a nd t he a p p l i c a t i on d i s m i s s ed w i th costs. M . M. Ramodibedi J U D GE 6 th d ay of N o v e m b er 1 9 98 F or A p p l i c a n ts : A dv Q h o b e la F or R e s p o n d e n ts : M r. Sello