The applicant has approached court for an order in the terms :

• That account number 022000237586 held at Nedbank Lesotho be freezed pending finalisation of these proceedings and any other account held by the 1st respondent in Lesotho wherein the proceeds of the estate of late Sello Machakela were deposited into from the pension fund that the late deceased was a member.

• That the 1st respondent be interdicted from dealing with or disposing off the assets of the late Sello Machakela pending appointment of the executor by the Master of the High Court.

• That the 1st respondent be and is hereby interdicted and restrained from holding out himself as a sole heir alternatively an executor ofthe estate of the late Sello Machakela.

• That the appointment of the 1st respondent as a sole heir alternatively an executor of the estate of the late Sello Machakela be and it is hereby declared unlawful.

• That it is hereby declared that the applicant, 1st respondent, 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent are equal beneficiaries in the estate of the late Sello Machakela.

• That the 6th respondent be and is hereby ordered to appoint any suitable person other than any of the heirs or heiresses as an executor and/or executrix of the estate of the late Sello Machakela.

3.        That 1st respondent should pay costs of suit.

4.        That applicant be granted such further and/or alternative relief.

Application for a declaratory order – Applicants having been Police Officers who were promoted – 1st Respondent having demoted Applicants without according them an opportunity to be heard – Court having found that demotion is a consequence of disciplinary hearing provided under Section 46 of the Police Act – And further that the right to be heard is an indispensable prerequisite principle of law under natural justice before one could be demoted.

Held:

1. the Applicants have proven their case at the requisite standard;
2. The application is grated as prayed in the Notice of Motion;
3. The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of suit consequent upon employment of two counsel

1st Respondent found to have acted ultra vires the enabling legislation by demoting the Applicant and to have violated his God given right to natural justice specifically its audi alteram parterm rule since reached the decision without first offering him a hearing.

Applicants seeking for an order that a disbandment of the Maseru City Council (MCC) Tender Board by the Minister be declared illegal for his lack of legal authority to do so and unlawful for not giving the hearing before reaching a decision adversely affecting their status as members of the Board.  Respondents maintaining that the Minister was statutorily authorized to do so and due to the exigency on the ground he had a discretion to dispense with the audi altera partem principle.  Held:

1. The Minister had no legal authority to dissolve the Board and by so doing infringed the common law principle of legality;
2. There were no averments in his answering affidavit that there was an emergency that he was addressing such that he was justified to dispense with the hearing of the Applicants before disbanding the Board and, therefore, ending their status therein.
3. Some of the prayers allowed while others were disallowed for their defectiveness on both form and content

The Applicant brought a common law based review application before this court primarily asking it to interdict the 1st Respondent from to retiring him as a Commissioner of Police purporting to be acting so in terms of Section 5 (3) of the Police Act which admittedly empowers him to advise the 5th Respondent to do so for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness in the Police Service.   The court interdicted the 1st Respondent from purporting to invoke Section 91 (3) of the Constitution which gives him the authority to endorse the advice he made to the 5th Respondent if he decides otherwise.  In addition, it interdicted the 5th Respondent from considering the advice and  in the event he had accepted it, to have the effectuating instruments stayed in abeyance pending finalization of this case.  However, the 5th  Respondent explored other avenues to have the Applicant replaced by his deputy.  To achieve that he misinformed the 5th Respondent that the former has already retired.  A foundation of the application was that the 5th Respondent acted so against him because he had addressed a letter in which he requested him to account for the involvement of cell phone in the logistics that facilitated for the assassination of his former wife Lipolelo Thabane.  in the meanwhile, his incumbent wife has been charged with a commission of a similar offence.  in that background, the Applicant counter charged that the process and the decision of the 1st Respondent was illegal, irrational  and so unlawful.

held:

1. The timing of the action that the 5th Respondent takes against the Applicant, is unwisely timed since it miraculously coincides with the letter through the Applicant requests him to explain the involvement of his cell phone in the development leading towards the killing of his late former wife;
2. There is no background history in the papers before the court which presents evidence that the 5th Respondent had ever complained about the inefficiency and/ or ineffectiveness of the Applicant in managing the affairs of the police. To complement that, there is no indication of any charge ever preferred against him by the relevant authority including any Minister of Policeover such managerial limitations including any indication of action taken by any one of his ministers regarding the allegedlimitations which runs counter the Section 5 (3) objective;
3. A misrepresentation made to HMK that the Applicant has retired and, therefore, that he should be replaced by Deputy Commissioner Hlaahla, seriously taints the process;
4. Consequently, both the process and the decision to recommend to HMK that the Applicant be retired, are found to be illegal, irrational and, therefore, unlawful.

The Applicants who are members of the Basotho National Party are suing its leadership structures for a declaratory order that a set of circulars announcing the forthcoming AGC and the holding of the preparatory constituencies elections were issued contrary to the constitution of the party.  This applied to the identified insufficiency in their contents.  Moreover, the Applicants identified procedural defects in the conduct of the elections within specified constituencies.  These included reference to indications of ‘doctored’ reports, crafty exclusion of some potential candidates from participating meaningfully in the election process and several suspiciously manipulated transactions.  The Court found the charges credible and accordingly granted the relief sought for as prayed.