CIV/APN/157/03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter between:
MOSITO TSEHLO APPLICANT
And
NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1st RESPONDENT
BASUTOLAND CONGRESS PARTY 2nd RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE MRS. KJ. GUNI ON THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2004
[1]
This is an application by one MOSITO TSEHLO who describes himself as a mosotho male adult of LOWER THAMAE and a member of BASUTOLAND
CONGRESS PARTY (BCP) in the Stadium Area constituency, NO. 31.
1
He is suing NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE and BASUTOLAND CONGRESS PARTY (BCP). He seeks a court order in the following terms;-
Declaring the decision of the National Executive Committee of the Basutoland Congress Party to disallow Applicant from attending the Annual General Conference to be ultra vires the party's constitution on the 17th January, 2003.
Declaring the said decision to be a nullity.
Further and/or alternative relief.
Costs of suit.
[2] GROUNDS ON WHICH THE SAID RELIEF IS SOUGHT
He was nominated as one of the representatives for the Stadium Area Constituency No. 31, to attend the Annual Conference of BCP held on the 17th January, 2003 at the COOPERATIVE COLLEGE, MASERU. There was a list of names of the representatives in the possession of the credentials committee. It would appear that anyone presenting himself or herself to attend the annual conference was asked his or her name.
2
When the applicant herein presented himself to attend the said conference, his name did not appear in the list of representatives. As a result he was denied admission into the conference. The applicant was denied entry into the Annual Conference because his name was not in the list. There is no response from the National Executive Committee to the written inquiries made on his behalf by the Vice Secretary of the Stadium Area Constituency regarding the credentials committee's refusal to allow this applicant entry into the Annual Conference.
In the absence of the response from the National Executive Committee, applicant made inquiries elsewhere and discovered that the reason for barring the representatives from Stadium Area was the interpretation and application of clause 25.5 OF THE BCP CONSTITUTION. It is the applicants contention that this particular clause of the constitution does not apply and therefore it should not have been applied.
3
[3] RESPONDENT'S CASE
On behalf of the respondents a number of points in the limine have been raised: the first point in limine taken concerns LOCUS STANDI IN JUDICIO:
It is alleged that the applicant has not proved that he was duly elected in accordance with the BCP procedures to attend the Annual Conference. The applicant alleged that he was nominated to be a representative at the conference. It is argued that in terms of the constitution of BCP no one is nominated to be the representative at the Annual Conference. Members are elected as delegates to attend the Annual Conference. That is why his name was not in the list of those who should be allowed by the credentials committee to attend the Annual Conference. In terms of CLAUSE 25.14.4, the representatives from constituencies to the Annual Conference of the BCP consist of delegation of constituencies elected by 1/500 or part thereof at the branch.
4
Nothing to this effect has been alleged nor proved by this applicant. Since the delegate to the Annual Conference is elected at the constituency, the applicant should at least allege and prove that his election to attend the Annual Conference was confirmed or passed by the constituency conference of the party - BCP. It seems this applicant was not elected, but was nominated as he alleges. This was improper.
CONCLUSION
This point in limine was well taken and must succeed. Having succeeded on this point, it serves no good purpose to go into the merits of this application. IT IS THEREFORE DISMISSED WITH COSTS.
5
KJ. GUNI
JUDGE
For Applicant : Mr. Matooane
For Respondents : Mr. Mahlakeng
