Lesotho Foto Laboratories & Lighting Distributors Pty Ltd v Nkuebe (CIV/T 6 of 80) [1980] LSHC 62 (17 November 1980)
The defendant failed to provide substantial counterproof or disclose the nature of his alleged bona fide defence; the cheque is a liquid document and the plaintiff is entitled to provisional sentence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1980] LSHC 62
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lesotho Foto Laboratories & Lighting Distributors (Proprietary) Limited; Defendant: Marcellus Bofihla Nkuebe
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Case Number
- CIV/T 6 of 80
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment on Provisional Sentence Application
- Outcome
- Provisional sentence granted for the plaintiff with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Provisional Sentence, Cheques, Liquid Documents, Defences to Provisional Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lesotho Foto Laboratories & Lighting Distributors (Proprietary) Limited
Plaintiff
Marcellus Bofihla Nkuebe
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Provisional Sentence Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the cheque constitutes a liquid document for provisional sentence
- 2 Whether the defendant has adduced sufficient counterproof to resist provisional sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant failed to provide substantial counterproof or disclose the nature of his alleged bona fide defence; the cheque is a liquid document and the plaintiff is entitled to provisional sentence.
Court Disposition
Provisional sentence granted for the plaintiff with costs.
Orders
- Provisional sentence entered as prayed for plaintiff with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CIV/T/2A6/80 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter of : LESOTHO FOTO LABORATORIES & LIGHTING DISTRIBUTORS(PROPRIETARY) LIMITED Plaintiff v MARCELLUS BOFIHLA NKUEBE Defendant J U D G M E NT Delivered by the Hon. Chief Justice, Mr. Justice T. S. Cotran on the 17th day of November 1980 This is a claim for provisional sentence on a cheque in the sum of M2413.35 drawn by the defendant in plaintiff's favour. The requisites for provisional sentence are : (a) that the document on which the plaintiff sues is liquid. A cheque is. (b) that the defendant is unable to adduce such counterproof as will satisfy the Court that in the principal case the probabilities of success would be against the plaintiff. The defendant opposes the claim and avers simply (a) that he is not indebted to the plaintiff, (b) that the cheque was drawn by him in plaintiff's favour by mistake, (c) that he has a bona fide defence to the claim. The nature of the bona fide defence has not been disclosed in the defendant's affidavit. In a replying affidavit the plaintiff avers that the cheque was given in payment for goods sold. A photocopy of the list of goods delivered and the price of each item with the signatures of the defendant and an official in the plaintiff's company was appended. Mr. Masoabi on defendant's behalf argues, not very persuasively I am afraid, /(a) that -2- (a) that the defendant "has no money", and (b) that the defendant has a dispute with the plaintiff over other matters with the company. This is, with respect, an argument devoid of merit. The balance of probabilities which the defendant must raise must be substantial before the Court will refuse provisional sentence (Davis v. Saxe 1953(3) S. A. 114 at 121) and mere conjecture or slight probability - will not suffice Ternant v. Lamb 1947 (2) S. A. 659) and further the question of probability must be based on facts raised in the affidavit itself (Inter- union Finance Ltd. v. Franskraalstrand Bpk 1965(4) 180 at 192. Provisional sentence entered as prayed for plaintiff with costs. CHIEF JUSTICE 17th November 1980 For Plaintiff: Mr. Koornhof For Defendant: Mr. Masoabi