CIV/APN/41/90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the
Application of :

L.P.S. FOOTBALL CLUB Applicant

V

MEJAMETALANA PROFESSIONAL F.C. 1st
Respondent
LESOTHO SPORTS COUNCIL 2nd Respondent

JUDGMENT
Delivered by the Hon. Mr Justice
M.L. Lehohla

on the 13th day of February , 1990

The applicant approached this Court on urgent basis
seeking an order of this Court setting aside a decision delivered by
2nd Respondent
on 1st February, 1990.

It appears that following a protest by the 1st
Respondent that one Palime Letuba allegedly a player for Maseru
Brothers F.C. was
fielded as a player by the applicant without any
transfer forms entitling him to do so having previously been filled
and filed in
the relevant office of the 2nd Respondent a decision was
made by the 2nd Respondent.

Consequently the applicant forfeited the points for the
game it was alleged to have fielded Letuba in. The initial decision
was given
by the Senior Football Executive Committee a sub-committee
of the 2nd Respondent.

On appeal to the 2nd Respondent the decision of the
sub-committee was confirmed.

/The

-2-

The sub-committee observed the witnesses and heard their
respective versions. Obviously it did not believe the applicant's
evidence
that Letuba was on duty at the Prisons Department where he
works throughout the period when he was observed by witnesses who saw
him play for the applicant on 16th September 1989 while he had
earlier been seen playing for Maseru Brothers F.C. on 2-9-89 and
2-4-89
respectively.

The second respondent was invited by the applicant to
correct a mistake by the Senior Football Executive Committee. The
second respondent
complied and no doubt. basing itself on EX."A"
a Duty List for Prisons Department substituted the time 1400 hrs to
2200
for 0600 hrs to 1400hrs.

Otherwise the 2nd respondent declined to interfere with
the decision of the Senior Football Excutive Committee.

I listened to the arguments and read the papers but have
not been able to find any irregularity on the basis of which this
Court can
be said to be entitled to interfere. It is not for this
court in a matter like this to substitute its verdict for that of the
tribunal
of first instance in the absence of proof of bias,
unreasonability prejudice, ill motive or corruption levelled at that
tribunal.

The application is dismissed with costs.

JUDGE.
12th February, 1990.

For Applicant : Mr Mphalane For Respondents : Mr
Monaphathi.