CIV/APN/221/89

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the matter between:-

LIOLI FOOTBALL CLUB Applicant

and

LESOTHO SPORTS COUNCIL 1st Respondent

SENIOR FOOTBALL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2nd Respondent

SCHOOLBOYS FOOTBALL CLUB 3rd Respondent

R.L.M.P. FOOTBALL CLUB 4th Respondent

JUDGMENT

Delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice J.L. Kheola
on
the 2nd day of February, 1990

In this application the applicant is applying for an
order in the following terms:-

1. 
   Requiring 1st Respondent to hear and dispose
   of the
   appeal of Lioli Football Club against
   the unlawful and wrongful
   decision of 2nd
   Respondent purporting to deny Lioli F.C,
   its
   lawful right to play homematches against 3rd
   and 4th
   Respondents at Tejatejaneng on the
   17th and 18th June 1989 or on
   suitable later
   dates.

   
   

2. 
   Fixing a definite date by which (a) hereof is
   to
   be done bearing in mind that the league is
   nearly completed.

   
   

/2

-2-

3. 
   Requiring 1st and 2nd Respondents to do
   all
   that is administratively necessary to
   the execution of paragraph
   (a) hereof.

   
   

4. 
   Failing realization of paragraph(a) hereof
   authorizing
   the presentation of the entire
   appeal to the court itself for
   hearing and
   disposal.

   
   

5. 
   Ordering costs against 1st and 2nd Respondents
   to be
   on the attorney and client scale should
   they oppose this
   application.

   
   

6. 
   COSTS against 3rd and 4th Respondents only if
   they
   oppose in the matter.

   
   

7. 
   Granting alternative or further relief."

   
   

The founding affidavit was deposed to by one Philip
Pholo who is the secretary of the applicant. He avers that according
to the first
league-programme for the first division (A Division)
clubs published by the second respondent for 1989 the two matches for
the 17th
and 18th June, 1989 were to be the plaintiff's home -
matches. A little while before those dates the applicant received a
letter
or circular from the second respondent to the effect that
applicant's home -pitch was suspended on those dates and that the
matches
con­cerned would be played by the applicant on the pitch
of the fourth respondent. The reason for this decision was that the
applicant's supporters had tormented the referees of the second
respondent on the 25th May, 1989 when the applicant played with
Swallows
Football Club at Teyateyaneng.

-3-

The applicant filed an appeal against that decision.
When the second respondent wrote to say that the decision still stood
despite
the appeal, the applicant asked the second respondent to pass
their appeal to the first respondent. On the 21st June, 1989 the
second
respondent wrote fa letter to the applicant demanding that
they furnish reasons why they (applicants) should not forfeit points
of
the two matches. The applicant finally wrote to the first
respondent demanding their right to be heard on appeal by it. Their
appeal
was ignored

by the first respondent.

The applicant has further averred that the second
respondent has no right under the legislation governing football in
Lesotho to impose
any penalty upon the applicant because that
function belongs to the Disciplinary Committee of the first

respondent. Furthermore they were not given the chance
to be

heard.

The opposing affidavit on behalf of the first respondent
was deposed to by George Sennane who is its President. He has deposed
that
the first respondent has no opposition to the hearing of the
applicant's appeal against the decision of the second respondent
tosuspend
applicant's home-pitch for the games against the 3rd and
4th respondents on the 17th and 18th June, 1989, provided the
applicant
follows the proper channels of lodging an appeal as
provided for in Article 3 of the Rules;.

/4

-4-

The first respondent acknowledges receipt of Annexure
"H" which is a letter and not an appeal because it was not
in conformity
with the provisions of Article 3 of the Rules.

The opposing affidavit on behalf of the second
respondent was deposed to by Morapeli Motaung who is its secretary.
He denies that
Annexure "E" is an appeal in terms of
Article 3 of the Lesotho Sports Council (Competition) Rules 1988. He
further denies
the applicant was not given a chance to be heard as
reports and/or representations by all the parties involved in the
game between
Swallos F.C. and the applicant of the 25th May, 1989,
were considered in arriving at the decision to suspend applicant's
home - pitch.

He deposed further that under Article 18 of the Rules
the second respondent had powers to suspend applicant's home - pitch.

I shall find it difficult to decide the issue of whether

the applicant was given a chance to be heard or not,
because

the applicant has not filed a repaying affidavit to deny
or to admit

that reports from all parties were received by the
second respondent before it decided to suspend the applicant's home -
pitch. If
it is true that reports or representations were made by all
the parti: concerned, then the applicant cannot be heard to say it
was
not given the chance to be heard because written reports or
written submissions are part of hearing what the other side has to
say
before a decision is reached. I have no reason to disbelieve the
allegation made on

/5

-5-

behalf of the second respondent that reports and/or
representations from all parties were received by it before the
decision was made
because the applicant has not denied the
allegation. It may be that the applicant was under the wrong
impression that being heard
meant appearing before the tribunal and
making oral submissions.

Article 3 of the Lesotho Sports Council (Competition)

Rules 1988 reads as follows:

"Appeals:

1. 
   Ten copies embodying reasons of appeal duly
   signed
   by the Secretary of the appealing team
   shall be sent to the
   Lesotho Sports Council
   through the Senior Football Executive
   Committee
   within 7 days after the decision of the
   Senior
   Football Executive Committee has been made.

   
   

2. 
   Ten copies of the appeal must be accompanied
   by an
   appeal fee of M50-00 whether the appeal
   is upheld or not, the
   appeal fee shall not be
   refundable.

   
   

There is nothing to show that Annexure "E" was
accompanied by an appeal fee of M500-00 in terms of the Rule. There
is also
no proof that ten copies of Annexure "E" were sent
to the second respondent. The Rule provide6 that the grounds of
appeal
should be sent to the first respondent through the second
respondent.

/6

-6-

Mr. Seotsanyana, counsel for the applicant,
submitted

that the applicant's appeal does not fall under Article
3 and that no demand was made for the appeal fee. He did not show the
Court
any other Article which deals with appeals. I have checked the
Rules and I have found no Article which deals with appeals other than
Article 3. I am satisfied that the appeal did not comply with the
provisions of Article 3 of the Lesotho Sports Council (Competition)
Rules 1988.

I do not think that the second respondent was under any
obligation to demand the appeal fee. It is the duty of the appealing
club
to make sure that its appeal complies with the Rules. In any
case how and why could the secretary of the

second respondent demand the fee when the language used
by the

applicant in the letter of appeal was so insulting. He
even warned the applicant not to use such language. As if that
warning was
not enough the language subsequently used in the
supporting affidavit was far worse than the one used in the letter of
appeal.

I warned Mr. Seotsanyana that whenever he gets a
brief from

some of the inexperienced attorneys,he must make sure
that the language used in the papers is such that will be accepted by
the Court.
The language was totally unacceptable and disgusting. It
is the duty of an attorney, as an officer of this Court, to use
polite language.

/7

-7-

For the reasons stated above the application is
dismissed with costs to the first and second respondents.

J.L. KHEOLA

JUDGE

2nd February, 1990.

For the Applicant - Mr. Seotsanyana

For the
1st and 2nd Respondents - Mr. Malebanye.