IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF LESOTHO

In the Appeal of :

C. OF A. (CIV) NO. 9\92

DR. MOKABE MOKABE 1st Appellant

DR. JOHN MOHAI 2nd Appellant

DR. MOLEFI SEQHOBANE 3rd Appellant

ANGELINA 'MABAKOENA MAHLELEHLELE 4th Appellant

vs

LESOTHO MEDICAL, DENTAL AND PHARMACY 1st Respondent

COUNCIL

MINISTER OF HEALTH 2nd Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL 3rd Respondent

HELD AT MASERU

Coram: Mohamed P

Browde J.A. Kotze J.A.

JUDGMENT Kotze J.A.

The first, second, third and fourth appellants were the
first, fourth, fifth and eighth applicants respectively in the Court
a quo. They claimed and obtained identical relief against the
first, second and third respondents viz. the issue of rules nisi
calling upon respondents to show cause why

(a) first respondent should not be ordered to recommend
to the second respondent that the universities from which the
appellants
studied be prescribed by

2

regulation as qualifying universities to enable the
appellants to register as interns in terms of Order 15 of 1988;

2. 
   Second respondent should not prescribe by-
   regulation
   the said universities as qualifying
   universities to enable the
   appellants to
   register as interns;

   
   

3. 
   first respondent should not register the
   appellants
   as interns upon the said
   universities being prescribed
   by regulation as
   aforesaid.

   
   

On the 17th February 1989 LEHOHLA J. discharged the rule
nisi with costs. The present is an appeal against the discharge of
the rule
despite the fact that the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy
(Amendment) Order, 15 of 1991 redressed the wrongs complained of. The
purpose
of the appeal, therefore, is solely to achieve a reversal of
the order of costs.

The appellants based their application on academic
qualifications respectively obtained at the Medical Academy Sofia,
Volgograd State
Medical Institute, Minsk State Medical Institute and
Leningrad Pharmaceutical School. It is not in dispute that neither
the said
qualifications nor the educational institutions which
granted them had been prescribed by regulation in terms of Medical,
Dental
and Pharmacy Order No. 13 of 1970 as amended by Medical,
Dental and Pharmacy (Amendment) Order No. 15 of 1988.

The statutory provisions which have a bearing on this
appeal

3

are quoted, discussed and interpreted in the hitherto
unreported judgment of ACKERMANN, J.A. in Kelello Mojela
Lerotholi v. Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Council of Lesotho and Two
Others delivered in this Court on 13th March 1990 (C. of A. (CIV)
No. 22 of 1989). It will be an act of supererogation to repeat herein
the said provisions. In the view that I take the circumstances of '
the present matter are not distinguishable from Lerotholi's
case the judgment in which should be read together with this
judgment.

In Lerotholi's case, as here, first respondent
took up the attitude that before the appellants could be registered
as interns they would be required
to take an examination prescribed
by it (first respondent). In doing so it contends that there can be
no question of it exceeding
its powers or prescribing an additional
condition for registration as contended by the appellants. The sole
purpose of insisting
on the examination is not to determine the
validity of the academic qualifications submitted by the appellants
but merely to serve
as a method of assessing whether or not a
particular academic qualification satisfies the standard contemplated
by the regulations
as contained in Legal Notice No.3 of 1972
promulgated in terms of Section 17 of Order No. 13 of 1970 as
amended. It qualifies the
first respondent to submit its
recommendation to the second respondent. It amounts to a mechanism
which the first respondent employs
to decide on its recommendation in
terras of Section 17 of the Order.

4

The result of the aforegoing is that the relief sought
by the appellants cannot be granted. The application was presented
to the
Court a quo prematurely at a time prior to the academic
qualifications of the appellants having been prescribed by the second
respondent in terms
of Section 17 of the Order.

It follows that the appeals of the appellants are
dismissed with costs.

G.P.C. KOTZE JUDGE OF APPEAL

I agree

I MAHOMED PRESIDENT

I agree

J. BROWDE JUDGE OF APPEAL

Delivered at MASERU this day of January, 1993

For the Appellants : For the Respondent :