Contract and was likely to dispose of the equipment if the attachment and removal order was not issued. It had expressed its disappointment that while the respondent continued to use its equipment and was not at the same time paying the rental, let alone the arrears, it was losing business arising from the fact that it could not lease the equipment to third parties. The release of the equipment into the appellant’s hands meant that the appellant was placed in a position in which it could remove the equipment from Lesotho and the respondent would no longer be able to use it. Once the equipment was removed, that issue was not to be reconsidered by the court a quo at the hearing in due course. Thus the removal order was in effect a final order and therefore appealable. The making of the was attended by at least two other irregularities, which were raised on appeal and, in fairness to both parties who had made submissions in that regard, the judge should have dealt with them rather than choose not to. The order was granted pursuant to an urgent application when on all the facts there was no urgency to justify that course of action. The Contract had not been terminated and the parties had had a long history of dealing with each other. In the absence of a
Contract and was likely to dispose of the equipment if the attachment and removal order was not issued. It had expressed its disappointment that while the respondent continued to use its equipment and was not at the same time paying the rental, let alone the arrears, it was losing business arising from the fact that it could not lease the equipment to third parties. The release of the equipment into the appellant’s hands meant that the appellant was placed in a position in which it could remove the equipment from Lesotho and the respondent would no longer be able to use it. Once the equipment was removed, that issue was not to be reconsidered by the court a quo at the hearing in due course. Thus the removal order was in effect a final order and therefore appealable. The making of the was attended by at least two other irregularities, which were raised on appeal and, in fairness to both parties who had made submissions in that regard, the judge should have dealt with them rather than choose not to. The order was granted pursuant to an urgent application when on all the facts there was no urgency to justify that course of action. The Contract had not been terminated and the parties had had a long history of dealing with each other. In the absence of a
APRIL%202016%20C%20OF%20A%20(CIV)%2060%20OF%202015%20KALEMA%20V%20METSI%20A%20PULA%202%20%20(1).docx