CIV/APN/561B/02

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter between:

THE
SECHABA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION APPLICANT

And

MOHAU
THAKASO RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Honourable Mr. Acting Justice T. Nomngcongo On the 11th day of
December, 2002

The
applicant has approached court on a certificate of urgency for an
order in the following terms:

1. Dispensing
   with the normal rules as to form and service on account of urgency.

   
   

2. That
   a rule nisi issue returnable on a date and time to be determined by
   this Honourable Court calling upon the respondent to show cause (if
   any) why:

   
   

1. The
   respondent shall not be interdicted forthwith from purporting to
   discharge the duties of the office

   
   

1

of the applicant's President pending the outcome of the disciplinary
hearing to be instituted against the respondent within a period of 31
days from the date of moving of this application.

2. The
   respondent shall not be interdicted forthwith from purporting to
   negotiate with the applicant's sponsors mentioned in Annexure
   "TSC3" of the founding affidavit concerning the said
   sponsoring of games administered by the applicant.

   
   

3. The
   respondent shall not be interdicted forthwith from holding any
   meetings with the applicant's affiliates concerning matters of the
   applicant's administration pending finalization hereof.

   
   

4. The
   respondent shall not be directed to pay costs

   
   

hereof;

5. The
   applicant shall not be granted further and or alternative relief;

   
   

2

3. That
   prayers 1, 2(a), (b) and (c) operate with immediate effect as an
   interim order.

   
   

On the
5th December my sister Guni J. granted interim relief in terms of the
notice of motion. The rule nisi issued was returnable on the 11th -
yesterday when it was finally argued before me at 5.15 p.m.,
answering and replying affidavits having been duly filed. Only the
respondent filed his heads of argument.

What the
applicant is seeking in a nutshell is for this court to enforce its
suspension of the respondent as President of itself and to prevent
him from holding himself out as such. The applicant says respondent
has simply ignored its suspension and gone about business as if
nothing has happened, a fact not denied by the applicant.

Arguments
were advanced regarding hether proper procedures had been followed in
launching this application and this took up most of the time. The
merits were also gone into. But in the view that I take the matter
can and indeed I go so far to say it must be decided on a
consideration that I raised in Chambers that is not directly referred
to in the papers nor was addressed to me, my raising it
notwithstanding. This is whether the respondent had

3

been
validly suspended in the first place. It seems to me that if the
suspension were not valid in the first place, it would be
unenforceable in the second.

The
letter purportedly suspending the respondent is marked "Annexure
TS 3". It details various serious allegations of misconduct
against respondent. It is dated 24 November, 2002 and is accompanied
by an unmarked letter dated the 21st November inviting the respondent
to a meeting to be held on the 23rd November. It was apparently at
that meeting that a resolution was taken to suspend the respondent.
The respondent did not attend this meeting. According to him he was
unaware of it.

The
letter reads: "I have been instructed by the Executive Committee
to ask you to meet and brief them on the current logjam which has
resulted in the Premier League teams not receiving their monies as
scheduled on November 21, 2002. The suggested meeting is to be on
Saturday 23rd November 2002 at 5 p.m. at the association's office. We
will appreciate your usual cooperation in this potentially explosive
and urgent matter." A very cordial letter to the President of an
association indeed, and nothing to prepare or warn him that his neck
was on the line so to speak. Whether he did or did not get this
letter, what we know is that he did not attend the

4

meeting.
It was at this meeting that his fate was decided. In short, he did
not get any hearing before he was suspended.

Was this
justified? Mr. Mohau indicated that he would address me on this when
I made reference to it. Unfortunately he did not. I am left with what
I have before me on the papers. The stark reality is that respondent
was suspended without a hearing. The letter that he received did not
warn him of the direct consequences that might follow and in fact
that did follow this non-attendance. He was in the circumstances not
given an adequate opportunity or notice that his status was at stake
so as to be able to put his side of the story.

I hold
therefore that the initial suspension of the respondent was not valid
for being in violation of the audi alteraum parteem. The court cannot
therefore come to the assistance of the applicant.

The rule
nisi is discharged and the application is dismissed

with
costs.

T.
NOMNGCONGO

ACTING
JUDGE

For
Applicant : Mr. Mohau

For
Respondent : Mr. Mda

5