IN
THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the Appeal of

DISEBO ALINA LETSOETSA Appellant

v

SOLICITOR GENERAL 1st Respondent

OFFICER
COMMANDING POLICE 2nd Respondent

JUDGMENT

Delivered by the Hon. Mr Justice J L. Kheola on the
20th day of February 1986

On the 4th March, 1983 the appellant made an application
in the magistrate's court at Mohale's Hoek in which she sought an
order against
the second respondent to be ordered to release to her a
certain Ford van with Reg No FBB 981T, engine number 7114 368340 and
chassis
number TPA 810203104526 which was then in the custody of the
second respondent.

It is common cause that the vehicle in question was
found abandoned somewhere in the district of Mohale's Hoek It had a
full load
of dagga The police seized it and kept it at the charge
office. It is also common cause that no person was ever arrested in
connection
with that load of dagga

In her replying affidavit in CIV/APN/9/83 the applicant
deposed that in August, 1982 a certain Ralitlhokoana Mosakeng of
Mohale's
Hoek asked her to lend him a vehicle to convey building
materials to his home at Maleoanye's place where he alleged that he
was building
a house. The terms of their agreement was that
Ralitlhokoana should bring the vehicle in December, 1982 He never
returned it. As
a result of his fa lure to bring back the vehicle the
applicant came to Lesotho and got the information that her vehicle
was at the
Mohale s Hoek charge office. she avered that when the
vehicle was taken from her the current

/registration . ...

-2-

registration licence was in the vehicle She attached to
her affidavit a 1981 registration licence

The application was dismissed on the ground that "It
had been made contrary to the provisions of section 65 of the Police
Order
No 26 of 1971 (as amended)." The applicant did not appeal
against this decision instead she lodged another application touched
in the same terms as the first one In addition to that she attached
a copy or her vehicle's registration licence for 1982 This second
application was heard on the 18th May, 1984 and it was dismissed on
the ground that it was res judicta.

The learned magistrate who decided the first application
was obviously wrong because section b6 of the Police Order 1971 does
not
prescribe any procedure nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the
magi­strate court. It does not say that a person who wishes
to
claim lost

and found property must not bring his claim in a court
of law but must

lodge it with the police The section merely provides
that if such property is not lawfully claimed by any person
for a period of saw months, the policeman in whose custody the
property is must inform the Commissioner who shall apply
to the
magistrate of the district For an order that the said property be
sold by public auction. In her appli­cation the appellant
had
cited the second respondent in whose custody the vehicle was, so that
the second respondent was not taken by surprise.

All what was expected of the appellant was to prove that
she lawfully

owned the vehicle. She produced a 1981 registration
certificate/licence

which was prima facie evidence of ownership The
court paid no attention to this document and purported to interpret
section 66 I have come to the conclusion
that us interpretation was
not only wrong but was uncalled for. The only issue before court was
ownership of the vehicle and nothing
else.

The second question is whether or not in the second
application the plea of res judicata was sustainable. The
essentials of a plea of res judicata presuppose that the
proceedings took place in a court of

-3-

competent jurisdiction and were determined by a judgment
which was final and a settlement of the rights of the parties In the
instant
case the rights of the parties were not finally settled
because owner­ship of the vehicle was not considered The court
restricted
its decision to the question of what procedure had to bo
followed. In Back's Theory and Principles of
Pleading in Civil Actions, 4th edi­tion by Isaacs at
p 144 the learned author says that where a magistrate dismisses a
rase with costs his judgment
amounts only to absolution and not to a
final judgment for the defendant and consequently such an order
cannot, subject to certain
conditions , be interposed as a plea in
abatement of res judicata (Cloete v Greyling,
23 S C. 57. Christiana Municipality v Victor, 1908 T S 1117).
In the instant case the court dismissed the application with costs
without going into the merits.
The plea of res judicata is not
available to the respondent

The appeal is allowed but because the vehicle in
question has already been sold by public auction the Court cannot now
order second
respondent to release the vehicles to the appellant. The
respondent must pay costs of the appeal and costs in the court a
quo.

J L. KHEOLA

JUDGE

4th April, 1986.

For Appellant - Mr Khauoe

for Respondents Mr Moguluma

CIV/A/16/85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the Appeal of

LERATA MOKILANE Appellant v

'MATHABISO MOKILANE Respondent

JUDGMENT

Delivered by the Hon Chief Justice Mr Justice T.S.
Cotran on the 18th day of February 1986

This is an appeal against the Judgment of a Magistrate
sitting at Butha-Buthe in which she awarded the Plaintiff the sum of
M60 per
month maintenance, M40 for her, and M20 for a child allegedly
fathered by the defendant. It was conceded by the appellant's
counsel
in the appeal, and it was clear from the trial record, that
the plaintiff and defendant were married by custom after an elopment
and that the child was born during the subsistence of that marriage.
In custom it is possible to have more than one wife. Defendant
had
two. There is no evidence that the defendant took any steps to
divorce plaintiff either by going to the local court or in any
other
acceptable manner outside court.

what was disputed in the appeal is the correctness of
the finding that the child was fathered by the defendant What has
happened
is that the wife shuttled between her own parents house and
her parents in law's house The mother of the defendant did not like
the
plaintiff and it was suggested that the defendant's father was in
fact the father of the child of the plaintiff who was his daughter
in
law' This was highly unlikely and

/ bordered . . ...

-2-

bordered on the preposterous. There was not an iota of
evidence to support it. The magistrate rightly rejected the
suggestion.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

T. S COTRAN CHIEF JUSTICE

18th February. 1986

For Appellant Mr. Nqakana For Respondent Mr
G.N. Mofolo

CIV/APN/15/85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the Application of

LESOTHO EVANGELICAL CHURCH Applicant v

ESAIA THITE 1st Respondent

THE
STANDARD BANK PLC 2nd Respondent

JUDGMENT

Delivered by the Hon Mr Justice J.L Kheola on the
17th day of February. 1986

This is an application for the granting of a Rule Nisi
calling upon the Respondents herein to show cause, if any, why

1. 
   First Respondent shall not be interdicted
   from
   operating a bank account with the 2nd Respondent
   originally
   named L E C Secondary School account
   under whatever name the said
   account is presently
   known

   
   

2. 
   First Respondent shall not be interdicted
   from
   interfering with or otherwise having any dealings
   with
   the Teyateyaneng Lesotho Evangelical Church
   Secondary School
   presently run in the Lesotho
   Evangelical Church building at
   Teyateyaneng without
   the consent and authority of Applicant or
   Applicant's
   agent

   
   

3. 
   Second Respondent shall not be interdicted from
   paying
   out any monies from the said account to the 1st
   Respondent
   and or any associate or agent of 1st
   Respondent

   
   

4. 
   Second Respondent shall not be directed to permit
   the
   Applicant only or its duly authorised agent or agents
   to
   operate the said account.

   
   

/(e) First.. ..

-2-

(e) First Respondent shall not be ordered to pay costs
of this Application.

2 An order that prayers (a), (b) and (c) operate as an
interim interdict having immediate effect

On the 21st January, 1985 the Rule Nisi was granted and
the return day was the 28th January. After several extensions of the
Rule
the matter was finally argued before me on the 13th March, 1985.
Mr. Sello for the Applicant is seeking confirmation of the
Rule while Dr. Tsotsi for the Respondent asks the court to discharge
the Rule Having
had the submissions by both counsel I confirmed the
Rule Nisi with costs The First Respondent appealed to the Court of
Appeal. The
case was remitted to the High Court for the hearing of
oral evidence for the purpose of resolving the disputes of fact which
exist
on the papers, and a deter­mination of the issues raised in
the Application The order on remittal reads as follows

"The dispute of fact relate to, and the issues to
be determined by the High Court are -

1. 
   Who is entitled to run and administer the school
   at
   Teyateyaneng known as "T Y L E C. Secondary School"
   or
   "Teyateyaneng Secondary" School or "Teyateyaneng
   F
   P A. High School"

   
   

2. 
   Who is entitled to utilise the funds in and operate
   upon
   the banking account at the Standard Bank Maseru
   previously
   under the name "Teyateyaneng L E C Secondary
   School" and

   
   

at present under the name "Teyateyaneng F P.A. High
School."

Accordingly whether the Applicant was and is
entitled to all or any of the relief sought in the Notice of Motion."

The founding affidavit has been made, signed and sworn
to by Mr. Moeketsi Mackenzie Tiheli who is the Educational Secretary
of Schools
of Applicant He has deposed that in about 1980 the
Applicant lodged an application with the Ministry of Education in
terms of section
12 of The Education Order No.32 of 1971 for
permission to open a new secondary school at Teyateyaneng to be known
as Teyateyaneng
Lesotho Evangelical Church Secondary School.

-3-

On the 31st October, 1983 the Permanent Secretary for
Education, Sports and Culture wrote a letter to the deponent that
permission
had been granted to the L.E C. to open a secondary school
at teyateyaneng. In that letter it was made quite clear that there
would
be no financial assistance from the Ministry of Education. By
copy of this letter the Education statistician was requested to
allocate
the new school a registration number By letter of the 7th
November, 1983 the Statistics Unit of the Ministry of Education
advised
the Educational Secretary that their school T Y.L E C.
Secondary School had been given Registration Number 223.005 He was
asked to
supply the Unit with the address of the school

Mr. Tiheli further states that prior to the aforesaid
registra­tion, the First Respondent, an elder of the Applicant
church at
Teyateyaneng, started operating the said school in
Applicant's Church premises at Teyateyaneng. He started collecting
school fees
and depositing them in a bank account with the Second
Respondent in Maseru and also appointed an interim committee to
assist in the
running of the school. On the 5th July, 1983 the First
Respondent wrote a letter to the Second Respondent directing it to
change
the name of the account from Teyateyaneng L.C.C Secondary
School to F P A. High Chool. This action was done without the
knowledge,
consent or authority of the Applicant On the 8th January,
1985 Mr. G M. Kolisang wrote a letter to Rev C M. Seotsanyana,
Applicant's
Minister in charge of Teyateyaneng Parish, advising him
to stop interfering in the affairs of Teyateyaneng Secondary School
and
further informing him that the school which was previously known
as Teyateyaneng L E.G. Secondary School had changed name and
registration
number and that it would be run by the founders/ parents
association. (The letter authorising the Applicant is Annexure "B",
letter from the Statistics Unit giving Registration No 223.005 is
Annexure "C", the letter written by 1st Respondent to
2nd
Respondent changing the account's name is Annexure "D" and
the letter from Mr Kolisang to Rev. Seotsanyana is Annexure
"F").

-4-

In his answering affidavit the First Respondent denies
that he ever operated any secondary school belonging to the
Applicant. He admits
that he was elected as chairman of a committee
of parents Formed in 1979 for the purpose of establishing a secondary
school in the
Toyateyaneng area. As all the founders of the school
were members of the Lesotho Evangelical Church it was initially hoped
that the
L E.C would give its blessing to the venture and take the
school under its wing That is the reason why the school was named
the
Teyateyaneng L.E C Secondary School. On the 10th July, 1979 the
committee wrote a letter to the Applicant asking for permission for
the establishment of the school. In reply to this letter the
Applicant asked the applicants what their status was as they said
they
were applying on behalf of the church and the community. 2t was
also explained to them that the proper channels were that the
application
from a parish must go to a Presbytery and after it has
been approved by the Presbytery it can then go to the L.E.C
Headquarters (The
letter is Annexure "G"). The committee
considered the reply and de­cided as the procedure described in
Applicants letter
would take ton long it was better to abandon the
idea of a church school and to form a community school instead.
Consequently they
formed an associa­tion called Teyatoyaneng
Secondary School Founders/Parents Association which was to run the
school. The association
was duly registered under No 83/25 in the
Societies register (see Annexure "H")

The First Respondent further deposes that on the
instructions of the school committee he borrowed the use of a
schoolroom of the L
E C. premises at Teyateyaneng from Rev.
Seotsanyana and he agreed on certain conditions. The school was
launched in January, 1982
The association applied for the
registration of the Teyateyaneng Secondary School with the Ministry
of Education. By letter dated
the 11th November, 1983 (Annexure "K")
addressed to the Headmaster, Teyateyaneng L E.C. Secondary School,
the Ministry
of Education advised them that it had approved the
operation of their school and gave it the registration

-5-

number 223.005. The First Respondent received a letter
from Applicant (Annexure "L") advising him that at a
special meeting
of the Presbytery held on the 28th February, 1984 he
had been appointed to the Board of Governors of the Teyateyaneng
Secondary School
and requesting him to call a meeting of members to
an inaugural meeting for the election of a Chairman He decided to
ignore this
letter.

Subsequent to the receipt of Annexure "L" the
First Respondent learnt that the registration number allocated by the
Ministry
of

Education to their school namely 223.005 was identical
with that allocated to Teyateyaneng L.E C. Secondary School which the
Applicant

purported to operate. His association drew the attention
of the Ministry of Education to this anomally and consequently the
registra-tion
number of their school was changed to 213.001
(see-Annexure "M").

In his replying affidavit Mr Tiheli challenges the First
Respondent to produce any scrap of paper to show that he or his
association
ever made any application for the opening of a new
secondary school. Annexure "K" was written after he had
advised the
Statistics Unit of the address of the Applicant's school
as he was requested to do in Annexure "C" He also refers
to Annexure
"X" which clearly shows how fraudulent the 1st
Respondent was in having the registration of the site changed into
the name
of his association.

The affidavits of Jeremiah Nonyana Lebeko who is the
Principal of the Applicant's school, Rev. C M Seotsanyana and Agnes
'Mabaholo
Baholo form part of the record I shall refer to them and
their annexures in the course of my judgment.

I shall first of all refer to section 12 of The
Education Order No 32 of 1971 which reads as follows

"(1) No person or society shall open any school or
shall assist in the opening of a school after the date of the
commencement
of this Order,or continue in existence any existing
school 6 months after that date, unless it has been approved by the
Minister
and registered in accordance with the provisions of this
Order and the regulations made under section 21

-6-

Provided that all schools which were approved and
registered prior to the commencement of this Order shall be deemed to
have been
registered and approved under this Order, unless otherwise
ordered in pursuance of the provisions of this Order.

(2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of
this section shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on
conviction
to a fine not exceeding four hundred rand, or imprisonment
for a period not exceeding one year, or to both such fine and such
imprisonment."

It is clear from this section that any person who wants
to open a new school must first of all apply to the Ministry of
Education
and get approval before the school is opened. Penalties for
contravention of this section are very severe indeed It is
understandable
why when the inspector of schools one Mr. Lekhanya
discovered that the school had been opened before the formal approval
of the Ministry
of Education had been obtained, Rev CM Seotsanyana
denied that he was the one responsible for opening the school
contrary to the
law. The 1st Respondent accepted responsibility and
told Mr Lekhanya to go wherever he pleased. In my view this conduct
on the part
of Rev. Seotsanyana cannot be interpreted as a total
disowning of the school because there is evidence that at that very
moment Applicant's
application for opening the new school was already
in the hands of the authorities (see Annexure "R" and "S").
Annexure "S" is very important and rele­vant because it
relates to minutes of the nineth meeting of the Central Advisory
Board on Education which was held at the Ministry of Education Board
room on the 13th November, 1980. Amongst the applications for
new
secondary schools which were referred to the Permanent Secretary for
Education Applicant's school at Teyateyaneng appears is
number two on
the list. This proves beyond any doubt that as early as 1980 the
Applicant had in fact applied to the authorities to
be allowed to
open a secondary school at Teyateyaneng

The approval was eventually given on the 31st October,
1983 per Annexure "B". Annexure "C" gave the
school a registration
number 223 005.

-7-

There is therefore no doubt that the school known as
Teyateyanenq L.E.C. Secondary School belongs to the Applicant. The
First Respondent
is obviously not tolling the truth that as early as
July, 1979 he and the committee that was running the school on behalf
of the
Applicant decided to form an association to found a community
school run by Founders/Parents association because at the first
meeting
that was held on the 7th November, 1981 it was reported that
on the 30th October, 1981 the 1st Respondent had phoned Applicant's
School Secretary reminding him of the founding of the secondary
school, in reply the Secretary of Schools informed the 1st Respondent
that he had already written a letter to Rev. Seotsanyana informing
him that approval had been obtained. The 1st Respondent went to
Rev
Seotsanyana and the latter told him that he had forgotten about it
and he then made an announcement in church on the 1st November,
1981.
It is clear from the minutes of the 7th November, 1981 that the 1st
Respondent and his committee were acting on behalf of the
Applicant.
He is obviously lying when he says on the instructions of the school
committee he borrowed a classroom from Rev. Seotsanyana.
There is
overwhelming evidence that at that stage, i.e January, 1982 he and
the committee were acting on behalf of the Applicant
(see Annexure
"X" "XI", paragraph 6 of Mrs Baholo's affidavit
page 81 of the record minutes of the meeting held
on the 23rd April,
1982.)

Mr. Sello has submitted that at the time the school was
opened in January, 1982 the founders/parents association did not
exist, it
was registered on the 10th May, 1983 long after the school
had been opened by the Applicant I agree with this submission.
Although
Rev Seotsanyana did not want to be seen as a party to the
running of a school contrary to law, there can be no doubt that the
1st
Respondent and his committee were acting on behalf of the
Applicant in the running of the school This fact is admitted by the
1st
Respondent in a letter which he wrote to the Department of Lands
and Survey (Annexure "X") in which he said "We all
along believed that it was a school under L.E.C and the L E C.'s also
believed likewise."

-8-

Dr. Tsotsi has argued that the school was founded
by the committee of which the 1st Respondent was the chairman because
originally the committee
made an application to the church but this
application pas turned down per letter dated the 31st July, 1979
(Annexure "G")
and then the committee decided to go ahead
without the church. It seems to me that Annexure "G" is not
a refusal by the
Applicant to got involved in the Founding of the
school In that letter Applicant explained to Mr. J N. Lebeko and the
committee
the proper channels they had to follow in order that the
Applicant could be in a posi­tion to consider their application
In
his affidavit Mr Lebeko deposes that even though he had not
received Annexure "G" the church at Teyateyanenq
nonetheless
took the proper channels as advised in Annexure "G"
The matter went to the consistory, the Presbytery and the Executive
Committee of the church where the request was approved, I am of the
view that what Mr. Lebeko has said in his affidavit is true as
it is
consistent with the fact that the appli­cation by the Applicant
did in fact reach the Ministry of Education after the people
at
Teyateyaneng church had apparently followed the proper channels.

Dr Tsotsi further submitted that in Annexure "B"
reference is made to the letter of the 11th October, 1933 and there
is no reference
to an application made in 1980 I agree with this
submission but I have already dealt with this matter earlier in my
judgment when
I referred to the meeting of the Central Advisory Board
on Education held on the 13th November, 1983. On that day the
Applicant's
application was before the Board and was referred to the
Permanent Secretary for Education Mr. Sello submitted that
the letter of the 11th October, 1983 was one of a series of reminders
the Applicant hod made.

The application for the site of the secondary school was
made by the Applicant This appears in Annexure "Q" which is
a letter
written to the Headmaster T.Y L.E.C Secondary School by the
Commissioner of

-9-

Lands. The first three lines of the letter read

"I am ready to proceed with the process of
arranging for a grant of lease of the above mentioned site for
educational purposes to the Lesotho Evangelical Church."
(My underlining).

Following this letter on the 19th January, 1983 the 1st
Respondent wrote a letter to the Commissioner or Lands which reads as
follows

ANNEXURE "X"

P.O. Box 28, Teyateyaneng, 19.1.83.

Lands & Survey, MASERU

Dear Sir,

re SITE TY LEC SECONDARY SCHOOL

We started the Secondary School mentioned above in 1982.
We applied for a site, which was promised to us under the same name T
Y.
L E C Secondary School and it was surveyed. We all along believed
that it was a school under the LEC church and the LEC's also believed
likewise. But as things went along, the Ministry of Education wanted
to know as to who had granted permission for the school with
what
letter. It is then that LCC then started denying it and we as parents
took responsi­bility for it.

I new request that this site which has been applied for
in the name of LEC should please be changed over to us as the parents
of children
who attend that school, particularly, because it was
applied for by us in the name of the LEC originally.

We now call the school Teyateyaneng Community Secondary
School. E. Thite on behalf of the Committee of Parents.

This letter shows beyond any doubt that the 1st
Respondent was taking what was not his. I do not know whether the
Commissioner of
Lands complied with the request and issued the lease
in the name of the association. If he has done so that is proof that
the 1st
Respondent can manipulate some of the officials in any manner
he pleases. The Commissioner of Lands was under a duty to hear the
Applicant before he could make any change.

10 -

Dr Tsotsi submitted that as the minutes (Annexure
Y) have not been signed they have no legal effect He did not refer me
to any authority for
that proposition. I had the opportunity to refer
to The Law of Partnerships and Voluntary Associations in South
Africa, Second Edition, by B. Bamford at page 129. All that is
required is that the chairman must make sure that the minutes should
be kept
at least in the case of a business meeting of any importance.
There is nothing to show that they have to be sinned. The other
requirement
is that at the next meeting the minutes must be confirmed
(Heathcote v. Stutterheim Municipality, 1963 (3) S A. 35 (E)
).

It was submitted on behalf of the 1st Respondent that he
has no locus standi in judicio and that the Applicant ought to
have sued the Association as a legal persona The difficulty as
I see it is that in the letter which the 1st Respondent wrote to the
Manager of the 2nd Respondent (Annexure "D"
& "E")
he did not state or indicate in any manner whatsoever that he was
acting on behalf of an incorporated society
called Teyatoyaneng
Secondary School "Founders/Parents Association". In fact
the name of the Association docs not appear
anywhere in that letter
It is true that the 1st Respondent signed as chairman but it is not
clear whether he was referring to the
school committee of the
Applicant In the letter he refers to

Teyateyaneng F P.A. High School, Box , Teyateyaneng 200

Obviously
the association referred to in the letter is definitely a different
one from the one that was incorporated on the 10th May,
1983
(Annexure " H"). The association which was incorporated on
the 10th May, 1983 was known as Teyateyaneng Secondary
School
'Founders/ Parents Association. In any case it seems to me that the
1st Respondent was discovered by the Applicant at the
outset when he
was trying to transfer the property of the Applicant to his
association. This attempt he did in his personal capacity.

In Annexure "X" the 1st Respondent signed on
behalf of the

-11-

committee and the parents. Again I do not know which
committee he was referring to. The only committee that was already in
existence
when he wrote that letter was the school committee of the
Applicant (see Annexure "Y"). I have come to the conclusion
that
the 1st Respondent has locus standi because he did all these
things in his personal capacity.

The question to be decided by this Court is whether,
having heard oral evidence of both parties and their witnesses, there
are any
new facts that could persuade the court to arrive at a
different conclusion. I have found no new facts. Be that as it may
certain
new exhibits were handed by both parties and I think it will
be proper to refer to them Exhibit A is a letter written by the Local
Administrative Officer of Berea to the Commissioner of Lands. It is
clear from this letter that the application for a site for a
secondary school at Teyateyaneng was made by Rev Seotsanyana on
behalf of the Applicant Exhibit D also shows that initially the 1st
Respondent was representing the Applicant when he made an application
and that he later changed his mind and applied on behalf of
F.P.A

The First Respondent handed in a number of documents as
exhibits. E.T.6 is a letter written by the First Respondent to Chief
Moabi
and his Land Allocating Committee in which he (1st Respondent)
makes it quite clear that he is applying for a site for a secondary
school on behalf of the Priest and the congregation of Teyateyaneng
I must emphasise that as far as I am concerned there has never
been
any dispute of fact in this application. In the minutes of the Ninth
Meeting of the Berea District Advisory Committee on Education
held on
the 6th June, 1980 Rev. Seotsanyana is reported to have made an
application for the opening of three secondary schools at
Teyateyaneng, Piting and Koeneng. He was then advised to inform
Managers concerned to submit their applications to the Permanent
Secretary for Education through their Educational Secretary. At the
Ninth Meeting of the Central

12

Advisory Board on Education held on the 13th November,
1980 Applicant's application for the opening of a secondary school at
Teyateyaneng
was passed to the Permanent Secretary for Education.
After several reminders made by the Applicant's Educational Secretary
to the
Perma­nent Secretary the permission to open the school was
made (see Annexure B).

All documentary evidence in this case show beyond any
reasonable doubt that the First Respondent had been acting on behalf
of the
Applicant in founding and running of the school He apparently
changed his mind when he discovered that the Applicant could not own
land and when Rev. Seotsanyana told the Inspector of School that he
was not responsible for the opening of the school contrary to
the
law. In his evidence the 1st Respondent stated that if Rev.
Seotsanyana had accepted the responsibility that the school had been
opened by the Church that would have been the truth. He stated that
when Rev Seotsanyana made this denial he decided to seize the
school
for the community.

The writer of E.T.1 was obviously making a mistake when
he purported to be registering two different schools. It is clear
from Annexure
"M" that the registration number of the
Applicant's secondary school at Teyateyaneng was changed so as to
reflect that
it was then run by the Teyateyaneng School
Founders/Parents Association. The deliberate and fraudulent attempt
by the First Respondent
in misleading the Ministry of Education that
there were two schools must be rejected

I have come to the conclusion that the Applicant is
entitled to all the relief sought in the Notice of Motion and that
the Rule Nisi
granted on the 21st January, 1985 is confirmed with
costs to the Applicant by the First Respondent. The costs of previous
appeal
must be paid by the First Respondent because there was never
any dispute of

-13-
fact which could not be resolved by the evidence
in the affidavits.

J L. KHEOLA JUDGE

17th February, 1986.

For Applicant Mr. Sello
For Respondents Dr
Tsotsi