Basotho National Party v Management Board, Lesotho Highlands Revenue Funds and Others (CIV/APN 335 of 95) [1996] LSHC 90 (13 September 1996)

Basotho National Party v Management Board, Lesotho Highlands Revenue Funds and Others (CIV/APN 335 of 95) [1996] LSHC 90 (13 September 1996)

The applicant failed to establish locus standi, as its interest was not direct and substantial but merely that of a member of the public. There was no statutory provision conferring standing on the applicant to bring the matter to court. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] LSHC 90
Parties
Applicant: Basotho National Party; 1st Respondent: The Management Board, Lesotho Highlands Revenue Fund; 2nd Respondent: The Minister of Finance; 3rd Respondent: The Attorney-General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Case Number
CIV/APN 335 of 95
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Public Interest Litigation, Misuse of Public Funds, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Locus Standi Public Interest Litigation Misuse of Public Funds Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basotho National Party

Applicant

The Management Board, Lesotho Highlands Revenue Fund

1st Respondent

The Minister of Finance

2nd Respondent

The Attorney-General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the application
  2. 2 Whether the disbursement of funds by the 1st Respondent was illegal, irregular, sectarian, or contrary to Legal Notice No. 91 of 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish locus standi, as its interest was not direct and substantial but merely that of a member of the public. There was no statutory provision conferring standing on the applicant to bring the matter to court. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs