CIV/T/54/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In
the matter between:

LESOTHO WORKERS PARTY
…............................................1^st
Plaintiff

EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF LESOTHO

WORKERS
PARTY
…...............................................................2^nd
Plaintiff

and

BILLY MACAEFA
…..................................................................Defendant

Judgment

Delivered on 24^th
September, 2010 by the Hon. Mrs Justice A. M. Hlajoane.

This is an action in which the
plaintiffs are claiming for a restraining order against the defendant
together with his agents from
dealing in any manner whatsoever in any
political activities using the name of the first plaintiff and to
return back all the properties
of plaintiffs and to pay back the
moneys belonging to plaintiffs.

Defendant filed his intention to
defend the action and subsequent to that filed his plea. In his plea
the defendant raised special
pleas on jurisdiction and locus
standi. The Court allowed evidence to be led on these two points
as the other two points on non-disclosure and non-joinder were
abandoned
as considered having taken an improper step in a trial
action.

Locus Standi

The defendant has led evidence
to say that he is the president of 1^st plaintiff in terms
of the Party’s Constitution of 2001 which was later amended in
2004. He handed in in evidence the amended
Constitution which shows
that he is still the President of 1^st plaintiff.

He testified that the plaintiffs
have no locus standi in terms of the amended Constitution and
the registered Executive Committee of 1^st plaintiff.
According to the 2004 Constitution none of the people who testified
for the plaintiffs is a member of Lesotho Workers
Party’s (LWP)
Executive Committee.

Plaintiffs sought to establish
their locus standi by handing in the 2001 Constitution as the
only one in force. They further argued that defendant was no longer a
member of LWP
as he was dismissed from the party in 2004. Besides
their saying so, nothing was handed in as proof of what they alleged.
They
sought to produce letters which could not be admitted as handed
in by people who did not author such documents.

Instead the 2001 Constitution
which plaintiffs relied on still showed defendant as the President of
the party with P.W.1 ‘Matsepo
Lehlokoana as his vice.
Plaintiffs’ witnesses were asked to clarify if the LWP was
represented in Parliament and the answer
was in the negative.
‘Matsepo Lehlokoana, P.W.2, who claimed to be the incumbent
President of the Party showed that she was
not aware that LWP was
represented in Parliament as according to her it was not supposed to
be represented. But the Court could
take a judicial notice of the
fact that Lesotho Workers Party is represented in Parliament.

On the papers before Court and
in evidence the individuals who have approached Court for relief have
not convinced the Court that
they are legally representing the 1^st
and 2^nd plaintiffs. They failed to establish their locus
standi to represent the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have in the main
action claimed for interdict but in argument on the issue of locus
tended to challenge the leadership of the defendant yet that was not
their case. The 2001 Constitution which they handed in in
evidence
still shows the defendant as the leader of 1^st plaintiff.

Defendant’s counsel on
this point supported his argument by referring to the case of Lesotho
Human Rights Alert Group v Minister of Justice and Others LAC 1990 –
1994 652, where it was held that;

“A person who instituted
proceedings to rectify the breach of the prisoners’ right as
prisoners must have a link or relationship
with them. To do otherwise
would amount to a revival of the extinct
actio popularis”.

That since there was no
connection between appellant and the prisoners, the appellant had no
locus standi to institute the proceedings on their behalf or
in their interest, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal
in the above
case showed that though appellant’s Constitution
authorized him to institute proceedings on behalf of individuals
whose basic
rights have been violated but because none of the
prisoners was a member of appellant therefore appellant lacked locus
standi. See also Lehloka v Lehloka CIV/APN/282/2006 Lehloka v
Lehloka (unreported).

Under the circumstances of this
case I find that plaintiffs have failed to establish their locus
standi and on that score the action stands to be dismissed with
costs.

Jurisdiction

Defendant argues that all the
prayers sought in this action fall squarely within the purview of the
Magistrate’s Court. That
the action has been brought before
this Court contrary to the provisions of section 6 of the High
Court Rules. The section requires that for matters cognizable in
the Magistrates Court to be brought to the High Court must first
obtain leave
of a Judge of the High Court.

Defendant further showed that
all the goods sought to be returned have not been quantified in clear
disregard of the provision of
Rule 20 (4) of the High Court Rules.
But my looking at the properties listed I realized that at paragraph
6 of the declaration

2 (ix) 1,500 tape cassettes at
M35.00 each has been claimed =

M52, 500.00

2(x) three hundred T-Shirts at
M50.00 each = M15,000.00

2(xi) M8,000.00 refund from IEC
as deposit for proportional representation.

When one adds the amounts
involve the total comes to something more than sixty-seven thousand
which is by far beyond Magistrates
Court jurisdiction.

Section 17(1) (d) read with
(b) of the Subordinate Court Order 1988 as amended by the Subordinate
Courts Amendment Act 6 of 1998 provides:

“Subject to this Order, the
Court, with regard to causes of action shall have jurisdiction, in
any action in which is claimed the
delivery of any property, movable
or immovable where the value of such property does not exceed.

1. 
   In case of a chief Magistrate’s Court, M25,000.00

   
   

• 
  - - - - - - - - -

  
  

• 
  - - - - - - - - -”

  
  

So that on the basis of what has
been said above the High Court is the Court with competent
jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
Though the Court may have
jurisdiction to entertain this action, but because plaintiffs have
been found to be lacking locus standi to have brought this
action the action remains to be dismissed.

The action is dismissed with
costs as plaintiffs have no locus standi in judicio.

1. 
   M. HLAJOANE

   
   

JUDGE

For Plaintiffs: Mr Mabuilu

For Defendant: Mr Rasekoai