Director of Public Prosecutions (Adv. Hlalefang Motinyane V The Prime Minister & 4 Others (CC/0008/2024 (b)) [2025] LSHC 167 (28 July 2025)

Director of Public Prosecutions (Adv. Hlalefang Motinyane V The Prime Minister & 4 Others (CC/0008/2024 (b)) [2025] LSHC 167 (28 July 2025)

The court held that the issue of the Chief Justice's allocation of the panel had already been determined and was therefore res judicata. The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable apprehension of bias or reasonable grounds for recusal. The judges' appointments were not made by the Chief Justice but by the King on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission. The application for recusal was dismissed as it lacked merit and was an abuse of process.

Citation
[2025] LSHC 167
Parties
Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions; 1st Respondent: The Prime Minister; 2nd Respondent: The Minister of Law and Justice; 3rd Respondent: Attorney General; 4th Respondent: His Majesty The King; 5th Respondent: The Chief Justice
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
28 July 2025
Case Number
CC/0008/2024 (b)
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Recusal Application
Outcome
Recusal application dismissed; objection of res judicata upheld; costs awarded against applicant.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Recusal of Judges, Judicial Impartiality
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Recusal of Judges Judicial Impartiality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant

The Prime Minister

1st Respondent

The Minister of Law and Justice

2nd Respondent

Attorney General

3rd Respondent

His Majesty The King

4th Respondent

The Chief Justice

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Recusal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principle of res judicata precludes the applicant from raising the issue of judicial panel selection again
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established reasonable grounds for recusal of the judges

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issue of the Chief Justice's allocation of the panel had already been determined and was therefore res judicata. The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable apprehension of bias or reasonable grounds for recusal. The judges' appointments were not made by the Chief Justice but by the King on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission. The application for recusal was dismissed as it lacked merit and was an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Recusal application dismissed; objection of res judicata upheld; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The respondents’ objection of res judicata is upheld.
  • The recusal application is dismissed with costs.