CIV/APN/34/81 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the Application of : MASERU UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB Applicant v LESOTHO SPORTS COUNCIL 1st Respondent THE SENIOR FOOTBALL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2nd Respondent JUDGMENT Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice I. Isaacs on the 16th day of April, 1981. An application has been brought by the Maseru United Football club against Lesotho Sports Council and the Senior Footbell Executive Committee. Originally the matter was brought "Ex parte" and a prayer was for a rule nisi; 1. That the league fixtures compiled for the "A" Division be post-poned; 2. Ordering the first and second respondents to include the applicant in the fixtures compiled for the "A" Division soccer league and programme for the 1981 season; 3. That a rule nisi be issued ordering respondents to show cause if any, why the relief sought in paragraph one and two herein will not be granted; 4. Why the respondents shall not be ordered to pay the costs of this petition jointly and severally. According to a note in my cover, the application came before the learned Chief Justice Cotran on the 27th of February, 1981. He refused to issue a rule nisi and ordered that the notice must be served on the respondents. This was done. /2.
-2- It is not necessary for me to give the details of the allegations made. After en answering affidavit was made by the respondents, a replying affidavit was made by the petitioner/applicant in which it now amends its prayer, apply for the amendment of the prayer, to include "that the league games played so far in "A" Division soccer league be declared null and void." Mr. Tampi who appeared for the respondents did not oppose the amendment and with considerable hesitation I have decided to grant this amendment. I want to make it clear though, that the granting of this amendment does not mean that the league games must be stopped. They can go on playing if they wish to, but they take the chance, of course, that if the application and this particular prayer is granted the games may be declared null and void. As there is a prayer now which effects other persons beside the respondents, there must, of course, be a joinder of those parties because they will be prejudiced if their games are declared null and void and they are entitled to put their views before the court. Therefore I make an order that all clubs or any other persons affected by this prayer must be joined and given notice that this application will be made. All the documents which have been filed up to the present, must of course, be filed on all respondents who are to be joined. In the course of argument this morning Mr. Tampi has asked that evidence be heard on one matter about the document which appears in the replying affidavit of the applicant, this document number M2. He wishes to test by oral evidence the /3.
-3- validity of this document. I can't see any reason why this application should not be granted. A question now arises as to the costs of these proceedings. On the application of the evidence to be heard, the usual order of costs would be that the costs should depend on the result as to whether the application for evidence was justified, in the present case as whether or not this document was held to be valid. But the application for the amendment of the prayer necessitates the joinder of several persons who were not previously before the court, and this must necessitate an entirely new application for all practical purposes. The only difference is that the papers up to the present need not be served on the two present respondents though, of course, they must be given notice that the other persons are being joined. I have considered awarding all the costs up to date to respondents but I think that the costs, except the costs of to-day should be decided by the court who hears the amended application, I don't think there is any question but that the applicant must pay the costs occasioned to-day. There was an amendment necessitates a post-ponement of the case, practically, a new case, because there are other persons to be joined. Therefore I grant the amendment to the prayer subject to the fact, that all other costs occasioned up to to-day ore to be reserved for the decision of the Judge who hears the amended application whether or not the application succeeds, in other words he may decide to order the costs to respondents even though the application may succeed. I want to make it clear once again that the amendment /4.
does not mean that the league competition is interdicted. The applicant must pay the costs of to-day. ACTING JUDGE. 16th day of April, 1981. For Applicant - P.Z. Ebersohn For Respondents - K.R.K. Tampi.
