HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1st RESPONDENT
CONGRESS PARTY 2nd RESPONDENT
BY THE HONOURABLE MRS. KJ. GUNI ON THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2004
an application by one MOSITO TSEHLO who describes himself as a
mosotho male adult of LOWER THAMAE and a member of BASUTOLAND
CONGRESS PARTY (BCP) in the Stadium Area constituency, NO. 31.
suing NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE and BASUTOLAND CONGRESS PARTY
(BCP). He seeks a court order in the following terms;-
the decision of the National Executive Committee of the Basutoland
Congress Party to disallow Applicant from attending
General Conference to be ultra vires the party's constitution on the
17th January, 2003.
the said decision to be a nullity.
and/or alternative relief.
GROUNDS ON WHICH THE SAID RELIEF IS SOUGHT
nominated as one of the representatives for the Stadium Area
Constituency No. 31, to attend the Annual Conference of BCP
the 17th January, 2003 at the COOPERATIVE COLLEGE, MASERU. There was
a list of names of the representatives in the possession
credentials committee. It would appear that anyone presenting himself
or herself to attend the annual conference was asked
his or her name.
applicant herein presented himself to attend the said conference, his
name did not appear in the list of representatives.
As a result he
was denied admission into the conference. The applicant was denied
entry into the Annual Conference because his
name was not in the
list. There is no response from the National Executive Committee to
the written inquiries made on his behalf
by the Vice Secretary of the
Stadium Area Constituency regarding the credentials committee's
refusal to allow this applicant entry
into the Annual Conference.
absence of the response from the National Executive Committee,
applicant made inquiries elsewhere and discovered that the
barring the representatives from Stadium Area was the interpretation
and application of clause 25.5 OF THE BCP CONSTITUTION.
It is the
applicants contention that this particular clause of the constitution
does not apply and therefore it should not have
of the respondents a number of points in the limine have been raised:
the first point in limine taken concerns LOCUS STANDI
alleged that the applicant has not proved that he was duly elected in
accordance with the BCP procedures to attend the Annual
The applicant alleged that he was nominated to be a representative at
the conference. It is argued that in terms of
the constitution of BCP
no one is nominated to be the representative at the Annual
Conference. Members are elected as delegates
to attend the Annual
Conference. That is why his name was not in the list of those who
should be allowed by the credentials committee
to attend the Annual
Conference. In terms of CLAUSE 25.14.4, the representatives from
constituencies to the Annual Conference of
the BCP consist of
delegation of constituencies elected by 1/500 or part thereof at the
to this effect has been alleged nor proved by this applicant. Since
the delegate to the Annual Conference is elected at
the applicant should at least allege and prove that his election to
attend the Annual Conference was confirmed
or passed by the
constituency conference of the party - BCP. It seems this applicant
was not elected, but was nominated as he alleges.
This was improper.
point in limine was well taken and must succeed. Having succeeded on
this point, it serves no good purpose to go into the merits
application. IT IS THEREFORE DISMISSED WITH COSTS.
Applicant : Mr. Matooane
Respondents : Mr. Mahlakeng
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