CIV/T/54/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter between:
LESOTHO WORKERS PARTY …............................................1st Plaintiff
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF LESOTHO
WORKERS PARTY …...............................................................2nd Plaintiff
and
BILLY MACAEFA …..................................................................Defendant
Judgment
Delivered on 24th 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 1st 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 1st plaintiff.
He testified that the plaintiffs have no locus standi in terms of the amended Constitution and the registered Executive Committee of 1st 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 1st and 2nd 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 1st 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.
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.
M. HLAJOANE
JUDGE
For Plaintiffs: Mr Mabuilu
For Defendant: Mr Rasekoai
5
