CIV/APN/102/81
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter of :
BERNARD THOKOA   Applicant
and
LERONTI MOHLATHE         1st Respondent
DAVID MARUPING   2nd Respondent
THABISO MATHAHA  3rd Respondent
M. MAFITOE (MRS)         4th Respondent
MATHUNYANE TSEHLO        5th Respondent
MARTIN LESEMA    6th Respondent
LEETO LEPHOTO    7th Respondent
MPHASI RAMAILI   8th Respondent
THERESIA TLAPANA (MRS)   9th Respondent
THERESIA MOKHESENG       10th Respondent
KHATISO LIPHOTO  11th Respondent
MAAMA TAU        12th Respondent
L. M. MOHAPI     13th Respondent
A.S. MAHLELEBE   14th Respondent
M. KOTELE        14th Respondent
BARCLAYS BANK INTERNATIONAL
D.C.O.   15th Respondent
JUDGMENT
Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Acting Justice B.K. Molai
on the 18th August, 1981

On the 1st July, 1981 the Applicant in this case
filed with the Registrar of this Court an Ex-parte
application calling upon the Respondents to show cause,
inter alia, why :
"(a) Respondents should not be restrained
from appropriating or in any way using
the funds of the Non-Academic Staff
Association that are kept with the
Barclays Bank, Maseru branch.
(b) Respondents should not be restrained from
interfering with the affairs of the Non-
Academic Staff Association and holding
themselves out as the Executive Committee
of the said Association.
2/ (c)

-2-
(c)     Respondent 1 to 15 should not be
directed to pay the costs of this
application,
(d)     Respondent 16 should not be directed to pay
costs of this application in the event of
opposition.
2. That prayer (a) and (b) operate as an
interim interdict with immediate effect."
In support of this application the Applicant filed
an affidavit in which he disclosed, in part, that :
-1-
"(a) I am the Acting Secretary-General of the Non-
Academic Staff Association otherwise known
as the Non-Academic Staff Union. This is the
body that represents the non-academic staff
of the National University of Lesotho.
(b) I am making this application duly authorized
by the Executive Committee of the Non-Academic
Staff Association. See letter marked Annexure
"A" hereunto annexed.
-3-
(a)     Pursuant to a resolution of a meeting called
by the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th Respondents
(who were members of the Committee) elections
were held on the 16th March, in which all
Respondents were elected as new members of
the Executive Committee of the Association.
(b)     The said Respondents called such meeting
without my knowledge as the Secretary-
General of the Association and also without
consultation with the rest of the other
eleven Committee Members.
-4-
(a) In terms of Clause 19 of the Constitution
on the Non-Academic Staff Association
Constitution, the term of office of this
3/ Committee

-3-
Committee of which I am acting
Secretary-General should end at the
Annual General Conference to be held
during the last weekend of January or at
a Special General Meeting called for that
purpose. See Constitutuion marked
Annexure "B" hereunto attached.
(b)     On the 7th April, 1981 a Special General
Conference in terms of Clause 19 of the
Constitution was convened and it was
resolved that elections should not be
conducted until a full financial account
of the Association has been given to the
members by the 5th Respondent who was
Treasurer of the Association. See minutes
marked Annexure "C" hereunto annexed.
(c)     Contrary to the resolution of the Special
General meeting mentioned above, the 2nd,
3rd, 5th and 7th Respondents proceeded to
conduct elections mentioned in paragraph
3(a) of this affidavit.
(d)     All the 15 Respondents claim they have now
taken over the Association and now form a
new Committee.
(e)     On the strength of this claim the Respondents
are operating the account of the Association
at the Barclays Bank and the Manager of the
said Bank declined to freeze the account of
the Association pending outcome of this
matter. See letter marked Annexure "D"
hereunto attached.
-5-
I verily believe that the meeting held by
the above mentioned Respondents was un-
constitutional and the subsequent elections
held in pursuance thereof null and void
because it was contrary to Clauses 34(c) and
29 of the Constitution which require that
4/ the Secretary-General

-4-
the Secretary-General shall arrange
for all meetings of the Executive
Committee and the Conference and further
that the Executive Committee shall conduct
business only when there is a quorum of
five (5) members.
-6-
I verily believe that the Respondents in
the premises are wrongfully and unlawfully
using the funds of the Association and
that the Respondents are not members of
the Committee of the Association as they
hold themselves to be and therefore they
should be restrained.
I granted the application as prayed and accordingly
issued a Rule Nisi returnable on the 20th July, 1981.
While the 16th Respondent did not oppose the
Application, Respondents 1 to 15 opposed it.
Acting on behalf of Respondents 1 to 15 the 2nd
Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit couched in the
following terms :
-1-
"I am duly authorised by letter by the
Executive Committee of the Non-Academic
Staff Union of the National University
of Lesotho to represent the Respondents
herein with the exception of Respondent
number 16 (SIXTEEN), the said letter is
attached hereto marked annexure "A". It
is not true and a deliberate intention to
mislead the Court for Applicant BERNARD
THOKOA to allege in paragraph 1 (a) of his
affidavit under reply that he is the Acting
Secretary General of the Non-Academic Staff
Association of the National University of
Lesotho. He was suspended by the General
members of the Non-Academic Staff on the
3rd April 1981 and he has never held any
5/ official

-5-
official position since his suspension
until out-voted completely during the
general elections held by the said
Association on the 16th April, 1981,
photo-copy of the minutes of the General
conference held on the 3rd April 1981 is
attached hereto marked annexure "B"
-2-
With regard to paragraph 3 (a) of Applicant's
affidavit, it is absolutely false for
Applicant to allege that the 2nd Respondent,
3rd, 5th and 7th held elections on the 16th
March. It is correct that 2nd, 3rd, 5th and
7th Respondents were members of the Executive
committee, it is also false that any elections
were held on the 16th March. The elections
were held on the 16th April 1981, nomination
day being on the 6th April 1981, see annexure
"B" .
(b) The meeting held on the 3rd April 1981 was
convened by a petition by the 41 (forty-one)
general members of the Association dated the
1st April 1981 directed to the Executive
Committee that the meeting must be held on
the 3rd April 1981, the meeting being called
in terms of Chapter 4, S.20 of the Constitution
on page 2 of the Constitution, the petition
was signed by 41 general members of the
Association and Applicant was directed by
2nd Respondent to prepare for the said
meeting, the said petition is attached hereto
marked annexure "C" and Respondents' directive
to Applicant concerning the arrangements for
the said meeting convened by general members
of the Association is marked annexure "D"
-3-
Forms for nomination were duly circulated
on the 7th April 1981, photo-copy of the said
form is attached hereto marked annexure "E",
6/ ballot

-6-
ballot forms for elections were held on the
16th April 1981, photo-copy of the said ballot
forms for nominated people in pursuance of
annexure "E" is attached hereto marked
annexure "F".
-4-
It will be noticed from annexure "F" that
Applicant was not nominated for any
portfolio outlined in the said annexure
nor for the position of Secretary General
or Assistant Secretary.
-5-
The results were published on the 21st
April 1981, that is of the elections held
on the 16th April 1981, the returning
officers were J M HLALELE and S S MASASA
who conducted the elections, the 15 members
of the Executive committee who are now the
15 Respondents were duly elected to the
respective positions indicated on page of
publication of the general elections marked
annexure "G" and attached hereto. Ad para-
graph 3 (b) of Applicant's affidavit, it is
denied that the said meeting was called by the
Respondents as has already been shown, the
general members petitioned for that meeting,
and the petition was in terms of the
constitution authorising them so to do and the
petition also indicated the agenda. On receipt
of the petition which had handed to Applicant,
2nd Respondent directed Applicant to arrange for
the meeting already convened by the general
members for discussion of the agenda mentioned
in the said petition.
-6-
Regarding paragraph 4 of the Applicant's
affidavit the contents of 4 (a) are admitted
in so far as they refer to the length of
term of office of any executive committee
is concerned, but the dates may be extended

-7-
in terms of annexure "B" of Applicant's
affidavit being the constitution.
-7-
With regard to 4 (b) of Applicant's affidavit,
the meeting was unconstitutional, Applicant
was not directed to call any general
conference or special docnference, moreover
in terms of annexure "B" hereof the general     
members had already suspended Applicant and
others on the 3rd April 1981 nor was there
a Chairman constitutionally elected as 2nd
Respondent was not at the meeting, nor did
he convene it or direct it to be convened
as he was not informed of it, nor was there
a petition for the meeting to be called, all
those who were said to be present at the
meeting of the 7th April 1981, who had been
previously members of the Executive Committee
namely P N QOBOSHEANE, B S THOKOA, R MELATO,
A S NQOJANE, B W LETHUNYA, T E SEJANE, L
MOTAFANYANE had in fact already been suspended,
the whole lot of them on the 3rd April 1981 in terms
of annexure "B" by the general members at a
meeting which was petitioned for by general members
in terms of annexure "C" and which said conference
was properly petitioned for in terms of Chapter
4. S.20 of the Constitution marked annexure "B"
in Applicant's affidavit.
-8-
Applicant and other members who attended
the meeting of the 7th April 1981 had
already been advised by the Chairman that
they had been suspended on the 3rd April 1981,
the memo advising them of the suspension is
attached hereto marked annexure "4", in terms
of clause 19 the alleged special general meeting
was not constitutionally convened. Ad paragraph
4 (c) of Applicant's affidavit, the allegations
thereof are denied as has already been shown.
With regard to 4 (d) of Applicant's affidavit
2nd Respondent avers that the 15 Respondents
referred to were properly elected in terms of
8/ the constitution

-8-
the constitution.
With regard to 4 (e) of Applicant's
affidavit 2nd Respondent avers that the
respondents operated the said account
lawfully in terms of the constitution
and that the 16th Respondent correctly
rejected the demands of the Attorneys for
Applicant as outlined in the letter marked
annexure "D" in Applicant's affidavit,
-9-
With regard to paragraph 5 of Applicant's
affidavit in terms of clause 34 (a) 1, the Chairman
shall preside over all meetings of the executive
committee and conferences and in terms of clause
29 (c) there shall be a quorum of five members,
one of whom shall be a legally constituted
chairman; in terms of annexure "C" of Applicant's
affidavit referring to the unconstitutional
meeting of the 7th April 1981, vide section 50
of the constitution, although there was a
quorum there was no legally constituted
chairman, apart from the fact that the executive
committee members thereat were suspended as
already mentioned. Vide section 50 of the
constitution.
-10-
WHEREFORE by reason of the aforegoing, the
Respondents humbly point out that the
allegations of Applicant as contained in the
affidavit have no substance and accordingly the
Respondents humbly pray that the rule nisi be
discharged with costs."
In reply the Applicant filed a Replying affidavit
in which he averred :
-1-
Ad Para 1
I deny that I was suspeneed by the General
Members of the Association at a meeting of the
9/ 3rd April 1981

-9-
3rd April because to my knowledge
as a Secretary-General and a member
of the Executive Committee there was
no such a meeting and if there was,
it was unconstitutional as it did not
comply with Articles 28 (c) and 34 (c)
of the Constitution. The elections held
on the 16th April 1931 in pursuance
thereof were null and void.
-2-
Ad Para 2 (a)
I deny that it is "false" but admit that
it is incorrect that the purported elections
were held on the 16th March and I accordingly
agree that they were held on the 16th April,
1981.
Ad Para 2 (b)
I accept as true the Contents of Petition
marked Annexure "C" in Respondent's
Replying Affidavit. I also accept as true
the Petition was made in terms of Article 20
of the Constitution, but I deny that the
meeting whose minutes appear as Annexure "B"
in Respondent's affidavit was the meeting in
pursuance of the said petition. The fact is
that arrangements made by me a Secretary-
General in consultation with the other
Executive Committee members for a meeting as
requested by the Petitioners, were disrupted
by the 5th and 11th Respondents. As a result
no General Meeting took place on the 3rd April
1981 and in consequence thereof a Special
Meeting in terms of Article 19 was convened.
This is the meeting mentioned in paragraph 4 (b)
of my founding affidavit.
-3-
Ad Para 3
The Executive Committee (excluding 2nd, 3rd,
5th and 7th Respondents) did not associate
themselves with any preparations for the
purported elections mentioned in. this
10/ paragraph

-10-
paragraph as they regarded such elections as
invalid.
-4-
Ad Para 7
I        deny that the meeting of the 7th April 1981
was unconstitutional as the Executive Committee
had a duty to convene a meeting after attempts
to call a meeting in compliance with the
petition had failed as explained in paragraph
2        of this affidavit. I also say that a decision
to suspend me and the other nine (9) members
of the Executive Committee or the "whole lot of
us" was not validly taken in the purported
General Meeting mentioned in Annexure "B" of
Respondent's Replying Affidavit as such step
was not in the agenda of the said meeting.
-5-
It is not true that R. Mokhuts'oane and B.W.
Lethunya (who are members of the Executive
Committee) were present at the meeting as
appears in Item 1.1 of Annexure "B" of
Respondent's Opposita Affidavit.
The allegation I am making is within
my knowledge in that a decision was taken
by the Committee in the presence of the
aforesaid R. Mokhuts'oane and B.W. Lethunya
to cancell a meeting that was arranged as
per request mentioned as Annexure "C" in
Respondent's Replying Affidavit. I subsequently
ascertained from the aforesaid R. Mokhuts'oane
and B.W. Lethunya whether they did attend a
meeting as appears in Annexure "B" and they
assured me that they did not.
-6-
I deny that there was no "legally constituted¹¹
Chairman in the meeting of the 7th April 1931
mentioned in Annexure "C" of my founding
affidavit. There was constituted a Chairman
11/ who was

-11-
who was co-opted in terms of Article 28
(j) of the Constitution as soon as 2nd
Respondent (who was elected Chairman)
dissociated himself from the rest of the
Executive Committee.
-7-
WHEREFORE, by reason of the foregoing
I verily believe that the allegations
of the Respondent as contained in his
Replying affidavit have no substance
and accordingly. I humbly pray for
confirmation of the Rule Nisi as
granted with costs."
It appears from papers filed with this Court that
there exist, at the National University of Lesotho, a
voluntary association for the Non-Academic Staff,
commonly known as NASA, brevitatis causa. NASA(herein-
after referred to as "the association") has a
constitution by which it is governed. This case
therefore falls to be decided on the constitution of that
association.
In terms of Clause 22 of the Constitution the
supreme governing body of the association is the
conference. Clause 18 of the Constitution defines the
conference as the Annual General Meeting or the Special
General Meeting of all paid up members of the association.
Under the Provisions of Clause 19 of the Constitution
the Annual General Meeting takes place in the last week
of every January. It was contended by the Respondents
and not disputed by the Applicant that the date may
however be extended. The Special General Meeting is
convened whenever business of the association calls for.
12/ Clause 20

-12-
Clause 20 of the Constitution provides that the Special
General Meeting or, to use the words of the Constitution,
Special Emergency Meeting shall be summoned on the
motion, inter alia, of a signed petition by forty (40)
of the members in good standing, addressed to the
Executive Committee, In terms of Clause 22(h) the
conference has or elects an Executive Committee one of
whose main responsibilities under the provisions of Clause
28 is to carry out the day-to-day business of the Association
As I see it, the position here is that there are two
factions of some of the members of the Association. One
represented by the Applicant and another by the 2nd
Respondent. Each of the two factions claims to be the
constitutionally elected Executive Committee. The
decision in this case therefore pivots around the
determination as to which of the two groups is, on the
balance of probabilities, the constitutionally elected
Executive Committee.
It is common cause that on the 1st April, 1981 a
petition (Annexure "C" of the 2nd Respondnet's Replying
affidavit) signed by 41 of the members of the Association
and calling for a Special Emergency Meeting of the
Association in terms of Clause 20 of the Constitution was
addressed to the Executive Commiteee of which members
appear to have been, among others: Maruping, Thokoa, Tsehlo,
Melato and Mokhutsoane, In his Replying Affidavit the 2nd
Respondent has attached Annexure "B", a document purporting
to be the minutes of a General Meeting of the Association
held on the 3rd April, 1981. I will deal with the
Constitutionality of this meeting later in the course of
this judgment as it was bitterly contested both in the
papers filed with this Court and in arguments before me.
13/ What is

-13-
What is of importance about Annexure "B" of the 2nd
Respondent's Replying Affidavit at this juncture is that
it reflects the following persons as being some of the
members of the Executive Committee: Maruping, Mokhutsoane,
Tsehlo, Mathaha, Lephoto and Lethunya. That they were
members of the Executive Committee was, indeed, not denied
by the Applicant in his Replying Affidavit. What he
disputed ad para 5 of his reply to the 2nd Respondent's
Replying Affidavit was the allegation that Mokhutsoane and
Lethunya attended the meeting of the 3rd April, 1981.
In his affidavit the 2nd Respondent averred that
Mokhutsoane and Lethunya were among the Executive Committee
members who had attended the General Meeting of the 3rd
April, 1981. To prove his averment the 2nd Respondent filed
Annexure "B" which prima facie appeared to be genuine
minutes of that meeting. On the face of Annexure "B"
Mokhutsoane and Lethunya appear to have been among the
members of the Executive Committee who attended the
meeting of the 3rd April, 1981, If Applicant now says
Mokhutsoane and Lethunya did not attend the meeting as
proved by the 2nd Respondent he is, in my view, raising
a new issue which he must also prove on a balance of
probabilities. As proof of his allegation that Mokhutsoane
and Lethunya did not attend the General Meeting of the
3rd April, 1981 Applicant merely contended himself with a
bold statement that :
"I subsequently ascertain from the
aforesaid R. Mokhutsoane and B.W.
Lethunya whether they did attend
a meeting as appears in annexure
"B" and they assured me that they
did not."
(ad para 5 of Applicant's Replying affidavit)
14/ This was a

-14-
This was a highly contested issue raised by the
Applicant. He had no personal knowledge of what
Mokhutsoane and Lethunya had told him. They were available
and Applicant could have easily called upon them to file
their affidavits to prove what he claims they had told
him. This he had failed to do and instead chose to make this
bold statement and rest. This he cannot be permitted to
do. The onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities,
that Mokhutsoane and Lethunya did not attend the meeting
of the 3rd April, 1981 as alleged by the 2nd Respondent
was clearly on the Applicant. In my view, he has failed to
discharge this onus satisfactorily. In the premises, I come
to the conclusion that the probabilities are that Mokhutsoane
and Lethunya did attend the General Meeting of the 3rd
April, 1981.
It may be observed that later during the course of the
meeting of the 3rd April, 1981 a resolution directing that
ten (10) members of the association, including the Applicant,
Mokhutsoane and Lethunya be suspended, for their alleged
duplicity in the misuse of the funds of the association,
was, rightly or not, passed by 78 against 5 votes.
(Annexure "B" of the 2nd Respondent's Replying Affidavit).
Their suspension was clearly a penalty purportedly
authorised by Clause 47 of the Constitution which reads :
"Upon a finding of guilt, the Executive Committee
shall award either of the following penalties :
(i) Caution, (ii) Reprimand, (iii) A fine
not exceeding five rand, (iv) Partial
or total suspension from membership,
(v) Removal from office, or (vi) Termi-
nation of membership."
It may however be argued that the penalty was un-
constitutional in as much as it had been awarded by the
conference and not the Executive Committee.
15/ The suspension

-15-
The suspension also appears to have been unconstitutional
for the reason that the constitutional preliminary procedure
had not been followed before awarding it. Thus a
desciplinary action should have been initiated by filing
a charge which specified the clause of the constitution
alleged to have been violated; the Executive Committee
should have determined whether the charge was sufficient
to warrant hearing; and the members should have been
afforded the opportunity to be heard - see Clauses 45
and 46. Mokhutsoane and Lethunya may well have deplored
them unconstitutional passing of the resolution to suspend
them during the course of the General Meeting on the 3rd
April, 1981. However, that in itself does not mean that
they did not attend the meeting of which the minutes
prima facie show that they did. Nor did the un-
constitutional suspension of the members render the
General Meeting itself unconstitutional.
I will now proceed to deal with the question of the
constitutionality of the meeting of the 3rd April, 19S1.
It appears from Annexure "D" of the 2nd Respondent's
Replying Affidavit that on the 1st April, 1981 the 2nd
Respondent, as the Chairman of the Association wrote to
the Applicant, as the Secretary-General, directing the
latter to arrange for a Special General Meeting on the
3rd April, 1981 pursuant to the petition handed to the
Chairman by the Applicant earlier on that same day i.e.
the 1st April, 1981. The venue of the proposed meeting
was to be at the Netherlands Hall from 1.00 p.m to
2.00 p.m. The Applicant did not dispute that following
the petition of the 1st April, 1981 he was directed by
the 2nd Respondent to arrange for the General Meeting of
the 3rd April, 1981.
16/ He admitted

-16-
He admitted that the meeting of the 3rd April, 1981 did
take place but argued that it was not held in pursuance of
the petition of the 1st April, 1981. The reason he
advanced for this was that he as the Secretary-General
and in consultation with other members of the Executive
Committee arranged for a different Special General
Meeting.
It becomes clear from this that the Applicant and
some members of the Executive Committee, excluding the
Chairman, took it upon themselves to hold their own
meeting to decide on a different date for the holding of
the Special General Meeting of the Association. They were
thus up to defying the directives of, and desociating
themselves with, the constitutionally elected Executive
Committee Chairman whose only sin could have been nothing
but his efforts to implement the wishes of the members
of the Association for a conference under the Provisions
of Clause 20 of the Constitution. Their meeting, without
the Chairman, could not however have been constitutional for
Clause 34 (i) of the Constitution provides that the
Chairman "shall preside in all meetings of the Executive
Committee and conference. " It seems to me, therefore,
that whatever the Applicant and his defiant group of the
Executive Committee members resolved in their meetings
not presided over by the constitutionally elected
Chairman whose portfolio had not become vacant and was
still available and willing to preside over meetings that
were constitutionally convened, as clearly demonstrated by
Annexure "D" of the 2nd Respondent's Replying Affidavit,
was unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
It has been argued for the Applicant that the
General meeting of the 3rd April, 1981 could not have
17/ been

-17-
been constitutional for the reason that it was only
arranged by four (4) members of the Committee, namely
the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th Respondents. This argument is
clearly based on the Applicant's contention that as
Mokhutsoane and Lethunya did not attend the Special
General Meeting of the 3rd April, 1981, they could not,
therefore, have arranged for it. I have already come to
the conclusion that the Applicant had failed to prove this
contention and the probabilities are in favour of the
2nd Respondent's contention that Mokhutsoane and Lethunya
did attend that meeting. The argument has, therefore, no
basis and must fall away. As I have pointed out, the
probabilities are that there were, at the General Meeting
of the 3rd April, 1981, six (6) members of the Executive
Committee, one of whom was the 2nd Respondent who was,
at the time, the constitutionally elected Chairman.
On the argument of the Applicant himself that only
those of the Executive Committee members who had associated
themselves with the Special General Meeting of the 3rd
April, 1981 must have arranged for that meeting, it must
be assumed that it was arranged by the six (6) who on the
face of Annexure "B" of the 2nd Respondent's Replying
Affidavit did associate themselves.
It was further argued that in terms of Clause 29(c)
of the Constitution the Executive Committee of the
Association is constitutionally constituted to carry out
its business when it has a quorum of five (5) members,
including the Chairman. The 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th
Respondents could not, therefore, have formed the
necessary quorum to arrange for the Special General
Meeting of the 3rd April, 1981.
18/ Again

-18-
Again, the argument seems to be based on the assumption
that Mokhutsoane and Lethunya did not associate themselves
with the meeting of the 3rd April, 1981. This assumption
has been proved untenable and the argument must, therefore,
be rejected.
Ad Para 3 (b) of his founding affidavit Applicant
averred that the meeting of the 3rd April, 1981 was called
without his knowledge as the Secretary-General of the
Association (and was therefore unconstitutional). As it
has been pointed out earlier the Applicant did not dispute
Annexure "D" of the 2nd Respondent's Replying Affidavit in
which the latter clearly instructed him to arrange for the
General Meeting of the 3rd April, 1981 pursuant to the
petition that had been handed to the 2nd Respondent by the
Applicant himself. That granted it surely cannot be in
Applicant's mouth to say the meeting was called without his
knowledge. What is abundantly clear is that he and his
defiant click of some of the Committee members were boy-
cotting the Chairman in their desperate attempt to oust
him out of office. They could not however achieve this by
dissociating themselves from or boycotting him and the
rest of the Executive Committee members. Such a procedure
was completely unconstitutional. To hold the contrary
would bring nothing but chaos into the Executive Committee
and the Association as a whole.
I come to the conclusion that the meeting of the 3rd
April, 1981 was duly convened in terms of Clause 20 of the
Constitution and therefore constitutional.
It was not disputed that during the course of that
meeting a decision was taken in terms of Clause 61 of the
Constitution calling for elections of a new Executive
Committee.
19/ The procedure

-19-
The procedure stipulated by the Constitution for such
elections was followed and all the 15 Respondents won
their seats. They therefore became the new constitutional
elected Executive Committee of the Association.

ACTING JUDGE
31st AUGUST, 1981
For Applicant: Mr. Mda
For Respondent: Mr. O.K. Mofolo