CIV/APN/104/85
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the Application of :
MATLAMA FOOTBALL CLUB Applicant
LESOTHO SPORTS COUNCIL First Respondent
SENIOR FOOTBALL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Second Respondent
BANTU FOOTBALL CLUB Third Respondent
LIOLI FOOTBALL CLUB Fourth Respondent
MAJANTJA FOOTBALL CLUB Fifth Respondent
LINARE FOOTBALL CLUB Sixth Respondent
SOLICITOR GENERAL Seventh Respondent
JUDGMENT.
Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice J.L. Kheola on the 26th day of April, 1985
This is an application for an order in the following terms;
"1. A Rule Nisi calling on all Respondents on a date to be determined by the above Honourable Court to show cause, if any, why:
(a) All the Respondents should not stop preparations for the Top Mount District Soccer Giant Finals sheduled, for the 26th, 27th and 28th April, 1985 forthwith until further directions by the above Honourable court.
(b) First and Second Respondents should not be directed to include applicant in the Top Mount District Soccer Giant Competition Finals Forthwith.
(c) First Respondent and Second Respondent should not be direct to pay the costs of this application.
(d) Why the above court should not grant such further and or alternative relief as it deem fit.
2
2. Prayer 1 (a) operates with immediate effect as an interim interdict."
Mr. Gwentshe for the Applicant appeared before me at 4.30 p.m. 26th April, 1985 and moved the application and sought urgent relief. The founding affidavit has been made by one Tseliso Monaphathi who claims to be the Secretary-General of the Applicant. He has deposed that on the 25th March, 1985 the Second Respondent issued a Circular No.4 of 1985 for the Top Mount District Soccer Competition. According to the Circular the matches were played as follows:
On Saturday the 20th April, 1985 -
(i) Fourth Respondent beat Qachas Nek 2 - 0
(ii) Third Respondent beat Mokhotlong 4 - 0
On Sunday the 21st April, 1985 -
(iii) Applicant drew 2 - 2 within the first 90 minutes with Thaba-Tseka and proceeded to win 8 - 7 after taking penalties.
(iv) Fifth Respondent beat Quthing 3 - 2.
(v) Sixth Respondent drew 3 - 3 within the first 90 minutes with Butha-Buthe and then proceeded to win 8 - 7 after penalties were
taken.
Mr. Monaphathi further deposed that the Applicant ought to have been selected to take part in Finals because of its victory against
Thaba-Tseka. He avers that the Second Respondent's action of excluding the Applicant from the Finals was procedurally unjust in as much as it was contrary to the Lesotho Sports Council Rules for Top Mount District Soccer Giant Competition, more specifically Article 2.2 (b) (3) and (5). In deciding to exclude the Applicant from the Finals the Second Respondent acted contrary to the principles of natural justice in that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard. He goes on to say that the Applicant stands to lose R3,000 as first prize in the competition if the
3
Respondents are not restrained forthwith from going ahead with the Tournament.
When the Application was brought before me, the final tournament was about to start in less than one and half hours at 6.00 p.m. It was quite clear that the matter was extremely urgent and that the four teams that had been selected were already in Maseru with their fans. I had no doubt in my mind that some fans had already paid their gate fees and were already sitting in the stadium. I am pointing out these things because in order to obtain the interdict at the eleventh hour, the Applicant had to show in no uncertain terms that it had a clear right.
Article 2.2 (b) reads as follows:
"The competition between the district teams shall be on a knock-out basis.
The district teams shall be fixtured by lot by the S.F.E.C.
The four teams which attain the highest goal difference shall qualify for the final tournament.
All inter-district matches shall be played at the National Stadium.
Where there is a tie, the number of goals for, shall be taken into consideration, and where there is a further tie, the Senior Football Executive Committee shall resort to the drawing of lots in order to finally classify the teams." (My underlining).
According to the evidence before me the Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents qualified for the final tournament by beating their opponents. The Applicant and the Sixth Respondent failed to beat their opponents within the first 90 minutes of their games. They were eventually awarded penalties and they each won by scoring eight goals to seven. This meant that there was then a tie between the Applicant and the Sixth Respondent. Article 2.2. (b) (5) provides that where there is a tie, the number of goals for shall be taken into consideration and that if there is a further tie the Second Respondent shall resort to the drawing of lots. In the
4
present case the Second Respondent had no alternative but to resort to the drawing of lots because the Applicant and the Sixth Respondent had the first tie on points and the second tie on the number of goals in their favour.
The Applicant alleges that the Second Respondent did not observe the principles of natural justice when it made the decision to exclude it from the final tournament in that it was not given the opportunity to be heard. It seems to me that Article 2.2 (b) (5) makes no provision that before the Second Respondent can resort to the drawing of lots, it must give the teams concerned a chance to be heard. I do not see any need that the teams should be heard before such a step is taken because it was common cause that there was a tie between the Applicant and the Sixth Respondent.
If the Applicant's case had been that the Second Respondent had not resorted to the drawing of lots in order to finally classify the teams but had arbitrarily selected the Sixth Respondent, that would have been a different matter and I would have had no hesitation to grant the Rule Nisi.
The application was dismissed.
J.L. KHEOLA
JUDGE.
27th November, 1985.
