IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the Application of :
MASERU UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB Applicant
LESOTHO SPORTS COUNCIL 1st Respondent
THE SENIOR FOOTBALL
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2nd Respondent
Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice I. Isaacs
on the 16th day of April, 1981.
An application has been brought by the Maseru United
Football club against Lesotho Sports Council and the Senior
Footbell Executive Committee. Originally the matter was
brought "Ex parte" and a prayer was for a rule nisi;
1. That the league fixtures compiled for the "A" Division be
2. Ordering the first and second respondents to include the
applicant in the fixtures compiled for the "A" Division
soccer league and programme for the 1981 season;
3. That a rule nisi be issued ordering respondents to show
cause if any, why the relief sought in paragraph one
and two herein will not be granted;
4. Why the respondents shall not be ordered to pay the
costs of this petition jointly and severally.
According to a note in my cover, the application came
before the learned Chief Justice Cotran on the 27th of February,
1981. He refused to issue a rule nisi and ordered that the
notice must be served on the respondents. This was done.
It is not necessary for me to give the details of the
After en answering affidavit was made by the respondents,
a replying affidavit was made by the petitioner/applicant
in which it now amends its prayer, apply for the amendment
of the prayer, to include "that the league games played so
far in "A" Division soccer league be declared null and void."
Mr. Tampi who appeared for the respondents did not oppose
the amendment and with considerable hesitation I have decided
to grant this amendment. I want to make it clear though,
that the granting of this amendment does not mean that the
league games must be stopped. They can go on playing if they
wish to, but they take the chance, of course, that if the
application and this particular prayer is granted the games
may be declared null and void.
As there is a prayer now which effects other persons beside
the respondents, there must, of course, be a joinder of those
parties because they will be prejudiced if their games are
declared null and void and they are entitled to put their
views before the court.
Therefore I make an order that all clubs or any other
persons affected by this prayer must be joined and given
notice that this application will be made. All the documents
which have been filed up to the present, must of course, be
filed on all respondents who are to be joined.
In the course of argument this morning Mr. Tampi has asked
that evidence be heard on one matter about the document which
appears in the replying affidavit of the applicant, this
document number M2. He wishes to test by oral evidence the
validity of this document. I can't see any reason why this
application should not be granted.
A question now arises as to the costs of these proceedings.
On the application of the evidence to be heard, the usual
order of costs would be that the costs should depend on the
result as to whether the application for evidence was justified,
in the present case as whether or not this document was
held to be valid. But the application for the amendment of
the prayer necessitates the joinder of several persons
who were not previously before the court, and this must
necessitate an entirely new application for all
practical purposes. The only difference is that the papers
up to the present need not be served on the two present
respondents though, of course, they must be given notice
that the other persons are being joined.
I have considered awarding all the costs up to date to
respondents but I think that the costs, except the costs
of to-day should be decided by the court who hears the
amended application, I don't think there is any question
but that the applicant must pay the costs occasioned to-day.
There was an amendment necessitates a post-ponement of the
case, practically, a new case, because there are other
persons to be joined. Therefore I grant the amendment to
the prayer subject to the fact, that all other costs
occasioned up to to-day ore to be reserved for the decision
of the Judge who hears the amended application whether or
not the application succeeds, in other words he may decide to
order the costs to respondents even though the application
I want to make it clear once again that the amendment
does not mean that the league competition is interdicted.
The applicant must pay the costs of to-day.
16th day of April, 1981.
For Applicant - P.Z. Ebersohn
For Respondents - K.R.K. Tampi.
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