IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the
Application of :
MATLAMA FOOTBALL CLUB Applicant
LESOTHO SPORTS COUNCIL First Respondent
SENIOR FOOTBALL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Second Respondent
BANTU FOOTBALL CLUB Third Respondent
LIOLI FOOTBALL CLUB Fourth Respondent
MAJANTJA FOOTBALL CLUB Fifth Respondent
LINARE FOOTBALL CLUB Sixth Respondent
SOLICITOR GENERAL Seventh Respondent
Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice J.L. Kheola on the
26th day of April, 1985
This is an application for an order in the following
"1. A Rule Nisi calling on all Respondents on a
date to be determined by the above Honourable Court to show cause, if
All the Respondents should not stop preparationsfor
the Top Mount District Soccer Giant Finalssheduled, for the
26th, 27th and 28th April, 1985forthwith until further
directions by the aboveHonourable court.
First and Second Respondents should not be directedto
include applicant in the Top Mount District SoccerGiant
Competition Finals Forthwith.
First Respondent and Second Respondent should not
bedirect to pay the costs of this application.
Why the above court should not grant such further
andor alternative relief as it deem fit.
- 2 -
2. Prayer 1 (a) operates with immediate effect as an
Mr. Gwentshe for the Applicant appeared before me
at 4.30 p.m. 26th April, 1985 and moved the application and sought
urgent relief. The founding
affidavit has been made by one Tseliso
Monaphathi who claims to be the Secretary-General of the Applicant.
He has deposed that on
the 25th March, 1985 the Second Respondent
issued a Circular No.4 of 1985 for the Top Mount District Soccer
to the Circular the matches were played as
On Saturday the 20th April, 1985 -
(i) Fourth Respondent beat Qachas Nek 2 - 0
(ii) Third Respondent beat Mokhotlong 4 - 0
On Sunday the 21st April, 1985 -
(iii) Applicant drew 2 - 2 within the first 90 minutes
with Thaba-Tseka and proceeded to win 8 - 7 after taking penalties.
(iv) Fifth Respondent beat Quthing 3 - 2.
(v) Sixth Respondent drew 3 - 3 within the first 90
minutes with Butha-Buthe and then proceeded to win 8 - 7 after
Mr. Monaphathi further deposed that the Applicant ought
to have been selected to take part in Finals because of its victory
Thaba-Tseka. He avers that the Second Respondent's action of
excluding the Applicant from the Finals was procedurally unjust in as
much as it was contrary to the Lesotho Sports Council Rules for Top
Mount District Soccer Giant Competition, more specifically Article
2.2 (b) (3) and (5). In deciding to exclude the Applicant from the
Finals the Second Respondent acted contrary to the principles
natural justice in that the Applicant was not given the opportunity
to be heard. He goes on to say that the Applicant stands to
R3,000 as first prize in the competition if the
Respondents are not restrained forthwith from going
ahead with the Tournament.
When the Application was brought before me, the final
tournament was about to start in less than one and half hours at 6.00
was quite clear that the matter was extremely urgent and that
the four teams that had been selected were already in Maseru with
fans. I had no doubt in my mind that some fans had already paid
their gate fees and were already sitting in the stadium. I am
out these things because in order to obtain the interdict at
the eleventh hour, the Applicant had to show in no uncertain terms
it had a clear right.
Article 2.2 (b) reads as follows:
"(1) The competition between the district teams
shall be on a knock-out basis.
(2) The district teams shall be fixtured by lot bythe
(3) The four teams which attain the highest
goaldifference shall qualify for the final tournament.
(4) All inter-district matches shall be played at
(5) Where there is a tie, the number of goals for, shall
betaken into consideration, and where there is a furthertie,
the Senior Football Executive Committee shall resortto
the drawing of lots in order to finally classify theteams."
According to the evidence before me the Third, Fourth
and Fifth Respondents qualified for the final tournament by beating
The Applicant and the Sixth Respondent failed to
beat their opponents within the first 90 minutes of their games. They
awarded penalties and they each won by scoring eight
goals to seven. This meant that there was then a tie between the
the Sixth Respondent. Article 2.2. (b) (5) provides
that where there is a tie, the number of goals for shall be taken
and that if there is a further tie the Second
Respondent shall resort to the drawing of lots. In the
present case the Second Respondent had no alternative
but to resort to the drawing of lots because the Applicant and the
had the first tie on points and the second tie on
the number of goals in their favour.
The Applicant alleges that the Second Respondent did not
observe the principles of natural justice when it made the decision
it from the final tournament in that it was not given the
opportunity to be heard. It seems to me that Article 2.2 (b) (5)
no provision that before the Second Respondent can resort to
the drawing of lots, it must give the teams concerned a chance to be
heard. I do not see any need that the teams should be heard before
such a step is taken because it was common cause that there was
between the Applicant and the Sixth Respondent.
If the Applicant's case had been that the Second
Respondent had not resorted to the drawing of lots in order to
finally classify the
teams but had arbitrarily selected the Sixth
Respondent, that would have been a different matter and I would have
had no hesitation
to grant the Rule Nisi.
The application was dismissed.
J.L. KHEOLA JUDGE.
27th November, 1985.
African Law (AfricanLII)
Ghana Law (GhaLII)
Laws of South Africa (Legislation)
Lesotho Law (LesLII)
Liberian Law (LiberLII)
Malawian Law (MalawiLII)
Namibian Law (NamibLII)
Nigerian Law (NigeriaLII)
Sierra Leone Law (SierraLII)
South African Law (SAFLII)
Seychelles Law (SeyLII)
Swaziland Law (SwaziLII)
Tanzania Law (TanzLII)
Ugandan Law (ULII)
Zambian Law (ZamLII)
Zimbabwean Law (ZimLII)
Commonwealth Countries' Law
LII of India
United States Law