Relebohile Makhetha
The High Court has ordered the freezing of the bank accounts of Thejane Chambers Trust following a legal dispute involving its operator, Advocate Thejane Thejane.
The case was brought by an aggrieved client, Matšepang Setala joined by the Law Society of Lesotho (LSL), who allege that Advocate Thejane has wrongfully withheld M262 500 of her funds.
Nedbank Lesotho, the bank handling the law firm’s account, has been instructed to prevent any transactions and to provide bank statements showing the receipt of the contested funds.
These actions are part of an interim court order issued by High Court judge Justice ‘Maliepollo Makhetha, following the urgent application.
The respondents in this case are Advocate Thejane, Nedbank Lesotho, and Lesotho National General Insurance Group (LNGI). Setala, a resident of Ha Matala in Maseru, is seeking the release of the funds she claims are due to her, which were awarded as compensation following a car accident.
According to court documents, Setala hired Advocate Thejane to represent her in a case against LNGI under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Order. The matter was settled on March 14, 2024, with the funds being deposited into Thejane Chambers’ bank account.
However, Setala claims that Advocate Thejane has failed to transfer the money to her, despite multiple attempts to contact him.
Setala’s affidavit details her efforts to obtain the funds, including a meeting with Advocate Thejane where she authorised him to collect the settlement amount on her behalf. Despite these arrangements, Advocate Thejane allegedly did not inform Setala of the payment’s receipt and subsequently avoided her inquiries.
“Sometime in 2019 I filed proceedings against the third respondent under the motor vehicle accident insurance order under the case number CIV/T/919/2019. The matter proceeded over a period of more than four years until settlement was eventually reached through mediation on the 14th March 2024. The first respondent was instructed counsel in the matter,” Setala said in the court papers.
“Upon settlement, I met the first respondent and he prepared a special power of attorney authorising him to collect the awarded sum from the third respondent herein. I duly signed the power of attorney and a copy thereof is attached hereto an Annexure `MS 1`. It shall be immediately deducible on the phase of the document that the first respondent was nominated for receipt of the funds.”
She continued: “Aware that settlement has been made and that I had followed all relevant procedures, I called the first respondent on the 10th July 2024 to enquire as to the progress in payment. The first respondent informed me in unequivocal terms that funds had not been allocated by the third respondent and that it would be a long time until I receive the money.
“Disheartened by this revelation, I approached the third respondent on the 11th July 2024 to make an enquiry on the status of the funds. There I was promised a prompt response upon inspection of relevant records. On the 12 July I received a call from the third respondent wherein I was informed that payment in terms of the settlement was made to the first respondent on the 14 May 2024, just two months after the day of settlement. (Proof of payment as well as explanatory email sent to the first respondent are hereto attached as Annexure `MS2 and MS3`respectively).
“Armed with this information, I had a telephonic conversation with first respondent who confirmed the contents therein and receipt of funds. He attributed his failure to report receiving the funds to sheer inadvertence in that he had not realised that the funds had actually been transferred to him. An omission he claimed to have become aware of upon checking his banking records and email correspondence with the third respondent after our telephonic conversation on the 12 May 2024.”
“The first respondent then immediately asked that I send him my banking details so that he transfers funds that are due to me. It is prudent that I indicate that as per our agreement, he was entitled to twenty-five percent of the three hundred and fifty thousand maloti (350 000.00) in lieu of his fees and commission. Consequently, I am entitled to two hundred and sixty-two thousand five hundred maloti (262 500.00).”
Setala further expressed concern that Advocate Thejane might have misused her funds and feared that any remaining money could be further mishandled if not protected by the court. She also noted that, legally, only attorneys are permitted to hold client funds in trust, suggesting that Advocate Thejane’s actions were not in accordance with professional regulations.
Advocate Lintle Tuke, the President of the LSL supported Setala’s application, affirming that the LSL had attempted to contact Advocate Thejane without success.
In her judgment, Justice Makhetha issued a Rule Nisi, temporarily barring Advocate Thejane from accessing the disputed bank account and instructing Nedbank to provide transaction records related to the settlement payment.
“Having heard counsel for applicant Mr. K.D. Phenduka and Mr. L. Adams, and having read the papers filed of record, it is hereby ordered as follows:
“The Rule Nisi is hereby granted in the following terms:
“That the 1st Respondent be interdicted from accessing and transacting on bank account number 11990218279 under the names of Thejane Chambers Trust held with 2nd Respondent pending finalisation of this matter;
“That the second respondent be interdicted from permitting any access and transactions on account number 11990218279 under the names of Thejane Chambers Trust to any party including 1st Respondent pending finalisation of this matter;
“The 2nd Respondent to furnish applicants a record of transactions and/or a statement on account number 11990218279 specifically for an amount of M350 000.00 paid to 1st Respondent in respect of MVA claim No. 004946CLM by the 3rd Respondent,” Justice Makhetha ordered.
The main case is set to continue on August 5.
Click here to find more