CIV/APN/189/83
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHOIn the Application of
ARTHUR VICENT MORUTHANE 1st Applicant
MANASE TAELO MACHEFO 2nd Applicant
v.
LAWRENCE MATIME 1st Respondent
S.R. JAAS 2nd Respondent
DANIEL TALA 3rd Respondent
AMOS CHITJA 4th Respondent
MAMOLIEHI MABOBA 5th Respondent
MATHABANG TSUTSUBA 6th Respondent
MOTEBANG MAHAEANE 7th Respondent
LEORNARD G. QOLI 8th Respondent
JUDGMENT
Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice J.L. Kheola on the 24th day of February, 1986
This is an application for an order in the following terms
Restraining the Respondents from holdingthemselves out as the Board of the SerutleSecondary School.
Interdicting the Respondents from treating theSerutle Secondary School as a community school.
Declaring Serutle Secondary School to be a schoolof the African Methodist Episcopal Church.
Restraining First Respondent from holding himselfout as the Head Master of the Serutle SecondarySchool.
Directing First Respondent to vacate the SerutleSecondary School.
(f) /Directing
-2-
Directing First Respondent to give a fullstatement of account of the moneys collectionduring the period 1981 up to 1983.
Directing all Respondent to pay costs.
The matter was argued before me on the 12th February, 1986. It emerged from the founding affidavit that the First Applicant is the Educational Secretary of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (hereinafter referred to as A.M.E.). He is also a pastor of the A.M.E. stationed at Ha Moruthoane in Maseru district. The Second Respondent is the new manager of Serutle Secondary School in the Butha Buthe district. He has succeeded the late Rev. Vans who died on the 2nd March, 1983. It will be noticed that before he died the late Rev. Vaas had already made an affidavit dated the 19th January, 1983 regarding this proceedings.
Before I actually proceed to deal with the facts of the case it will perhaps be convenient to state what the law is regarding the opening of a new school. Section 12 of the Education Order No.32 of 1971 states in no uncertain terms that before any school is opened permission must be obtained from the Minister of Education, Sports and Culture. It is a criminal offence to open any school without permission of the Minister of Education, Sports and Culture. The crucial question to be decided in this application is to whom did the Minister of Education grant permission to open Serutle Secondary School? In order to answer this question it will first be necessary to determine who formally applied for the opening of the school in question.
In his founding affidavit Rev. Moruthane deposes that in 1979 the A.M.E. Church applied for permission to open its own secondary school at Serutle. The site for the school was applied for by the A.M E. Church and registered in the Deeds Registry Office under
/number
-3-
number 14892 on the 14th November. 1982 by the A.M.E Church. He further deposes that the Serutle Secondary School was registered as an A.M.E Church School by the Ministry of Education and in support of this he annexes a letter by the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture dated the 26th January, 1982 In paragraph 3 of the letter permission is given to A.M E. Church to open Serutle Secondary School on certain conditions (See Annexure A to his affidavit). He states that until the 21st July, 1981 the First Respondent acknowledged the authority of the late Rev. Vaas as manager of Serutle Secondary School. He annexes to his affidavit two letters (Annexures D and E) in which the First Respondent addressed the late Rev. Vaas as the manager of Serutle Secondary School. On annexure E the late Rev. Vaas was being invited to a staff meeting in which certain affairs of the school were going to be discussed
In his supporting affidavit the late Rev. Vaas deposes that the A.M.E Church applied for the opening of its own secondary school in 1979 and that the application was conditionally granted. The site for the school was obtained by him and registered by him at the Deeds Registry Office, under number 14892 on the 14th November, 1982. He avers that the First Respondent was appointed as headmaster by him in his capacity as manager of Serutle Secondary School and priest in church of the parish. In January, 1982 the Educational Secretary of the A.M.E. Church Schools directed that a school commitee be elected by the church and that the parents of the children attending the school should elect two representatives to serve on the school committee. In February, 1982 he heard that the parents had elected a rival school committee without his knowledge and without the authority of the Church. It was after the election of this rival committee that the First Respondent declared the school a community school.
The Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Respondents have filed their affidavits in which they admit that on the 20th February, 1982
/they were...
-4-
they were elected as members of the school committee referred to by Rev Vans. However, they deny that on that day the First Respondent declared Serutle Secondary School as a community school. They aver that the school remained an A.M.E. Church school and even though the committee was elected it never served because the First, Second and Fourth Respondents did not allow the committee to have any access to the funds of the school nor to have any say in the running of the school. Rev. Vaas was present when this committee was elected.
On the 7th February, 1986 the Applicants withdrew their case against the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Respondents and
tendered their costs.
In their opposing affidavits the First, Second and Fourth Respondents deny every allegation made by the applicants and in the supporting affidavits. First Respondent avers that Serutle Secondary School is a community school founded by the people of Serutle He has annexed to his affidavit a letter from the Ministry of Education dated August 5th, 1982 addressed to the Headmaster/Mistress of Serutle Secondary school giving official approval of the school to operate. The school was given registration number 251.001 as unaided community school. I must state from the outset that this annexure does not describe the school as an unaided community school. It does not in anyway support the Respondents' case that the school is a community school.
First Respondent has annexed copies of the minutes of the parents' meetings which were held on the 17th January, 1979, 28th April, 1979, 4th July, 1979, 20th February, 1982, He avers that the late Rev. Vaas attended all these meetings as a parent and not as a manager of the school. He denies that he ever acknowledged any authority from the late Rev. Vaas and that he was never appointed by him as the headmaster of Serutle Secondary School . He has also annexed the constitution of Serutle Secondary School which clearly shows that the school is a community school.
/The supporting
-5-
The supporting affidavit is made by one 'Mamahe Chenene who claims to be the chief of Ha Mopeli The affidavit is entirely useless because he avers that he was informed by the First Respondent that he (1st Respondent) was building the school after the site had been allocated to him by the chief of Serutle. 'Mamahe Chenene is not the chief of Serutle and knows nothing about the application of the site for the school. His evidence is hearsay.
The First applicant has annexed to his replying affidavit to First Respondent's opposing affidavit minutes of the Eighth meeting of the Butha Buthe District Advisory Committee on Education which was held on the 8th June, 1979 At that meeting the A M.E church made an application for permission to open a secondary school at Serutle. The District Advisory Committee on Education recommended that permission be granted provisionally on the basis of need. Annexure "I" is the title deed no. 14892 and the Form C in it shows that the chief who allocated the site is chieftainess 'Mamohale Mokebe and not 'Mamahe Chenene who is not chief of Serutle.
Another very important Annexure is Annexure "J" which is a certificate written by the Chief Education Officer dated the 7th February, 1986. It reads as follows'
Ministry of Education, Sports & Culture, P.O. Box 47, MASERU 100
7th February, 1986
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that Serutle Secondary School was applied for and approved as a Secondary School belonging to the African Methodist Episcopol Church, with the Registration Number 251001.
This Registration Number is interpreted as follows
2 - refers to a Secondary School
5 - refers to the African Methodist Church
/1- refers
-6-
1 - refers to the Butha Buthe District 0 .
.
- refers to fact that it is the first of the African
Methodist Secondary School in the district.
C M BOHLOKO
CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER
It will be noticed right from the outset that all the documentary evidence from the Ministry of Education proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the school was applied for by the A M.E. church and registered in its name. The first letter is Annexure "A" to the First Applicant's founding affidavit. In that letter Serutle Secondary School is referred to as an A M E. church school and is given registration number 251.001. This number is thoroughly explained in Annexure "J" above I do not wish to repeat the interpretation of what that number means because after reading that certificate one is left in no doubt that the school is registered as that of the A.M.E. church. The next document is the minutes of the eighth meeting of the Butha Buthe Advisory Committee on Education held on the 8th June, 1979. At that meeting the A.M.E. church was represented by the late Rev Vaas, the eight respondent and three other people. The application for permission to open a new secondary school at Serutle was made on behalf of A M.E. Church and a recommendation was made to the Ministry of Education. This application was followed by the approval in Annexure "A". The Respondents have hopelessly failed to rebut this formidable evidence that the school was applied for by the A.M.E church and registered in the name of the A.M.E church. They have attempted to allege that the late Rev. Vaas fraudulently registered the school in the name of the church
The serious charge of fraud against late Rev. Vaas is not supported by any shred of evidence. The Respondents are relying on the minutes of
-7-
the meetings of parents which were held on various dates. Something very strange about these meetings is that they do not show who attended such meetings. At the meeting held on the 20th February, 1982 the late Rev Vaas is reported to have told the people who attended that meeting that the school belonged to the A M.E. church. He apparently made this remark when a rival committee was appointed The late Rev Vaas was denied the right to address the meeting. The Respondents cannot now allege fraud when they ignored the late Rev. Vaas when he told them that the school was the A.M.E church school. The Respondents have not produced any minutes of the Butha Buthe District Advisory Committee on Education at which their application for the permission to open a secondary school at Serutle was considered. The application for the opening or a new school is usually moved by the applicant at the meeting of the District Advisory Committee on Education because they are the people who have to make a recommendation to the Ministry of Education as they are people who know the needs of their district. Section 12 (3) (4) (5) of Order 32 of 1971 read as follows
"(3) An Application for a new school or class shall be made to the District Advisory Committee which shall consider the application and forward its decision with recommendations to the Minister
The District Advisory Committee shall consider theapplication in relation to the Ministry's school mapfor each area or district.
The Minister shall, after considering the decisionand recommendation submitted by the District Advisory Committee, communicate his approval or disapproval of the application, as the case may be tothe applicant with a copy to the departmental officerin charge."
I must repeat that the late Rev. Vaas did not attempt to register the school secretly without the knowledge of the Respondents. At the said meeting of the District Advisory Committee on Education he openly made the application in the presence of both the Eighth and the Sixth Respondents who have deposed in their affidavits that the school has always been an A.M E church school right from its inception. Mr. Paul
-8-
Pule, who is now on the so called rival committee, was present at the meeting of D A C E. He was representing the A.M.E. church. He cannot now be heard to say the school is a community school
It was argued on behalf of the Respondents that the A M.E. church has not contributed any funds towards the building of the school and towards payment of teachers. It has not been denied that it was through the leadership of the late Rev. Vaas that the people of Serutle were brought together and formed a school committee under the wings of the A.M E church The school was registered by the A.M.E. church and the children who went to this A.ME. church school had to pay school fees The school fees were paid to the school and were used to build classrooms and on salaries of teachers. It was made quite clear in Annexure "A" to 1st Applicant's founding affidavit that the school should not expect any Government funding because of the then grants constraints. So, the church had no alternative but to pay teachers out of the school fees paid by the children. That fact alone cannot make a school a community school
For the reasons I have stated above the application is granted as prayed in the Notice of Motion except that the costs must be paid by the First, Second and Fourth Respondents
J L KHEOLA
JUDGE.
24th February, 1986.
For Applicants - W.C M. MAQUTU For Respondents - J.N. MOFOLO.