Khoabane v Ntsoaole and Others (CIV/APN 437 of 96) [1997] LSHC 94 (8 December 1997)

1 CIV\APN\437\96 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the Application of: JUBILEE TSELISO K H O A B A NE Applicant vs S. P. N T S O A O LE MINISTER OF E D U C A T I ON A T T O R N E Y - G E N E R AL 1st Respondent 2nd Respondent 3rd Respondent J U D G M E NT Delivered by the Hon. Mr Justice M L Lehohla on the 8th Day of September, 1997 T he a p p l i c a nt in his f o u n d i ng affidavit a v e r r ed that he is a Principal of Life H i gh S c h o o l, F u r t h er that the first r e s p o n d e nt is cited in this p r o c e e d i ng as the S u p e r v i s or of G o v e r n m e nt C o n t r o l l ed S c h o o ls of c\o M i n i s t ry of E d u c a t i on in the district of M a s e ru In this p r o c e e d i ng it is clear to me that in t e r ms of p a r a g r a p hs 4.2 t h r o u gh 4 . 4, the applicant is objecting to his p u r p o r t ed transfer effected by t he B o a rd of C o n t r ol Life H i gh S c h o ol following w h i ch the 1st r e s p o n d e nt in contradiction of his undertaking that he w o u ld regularise the matter in r e s p o n se to the applicant's indication to h im that the m o ve w as contrary to Section 42 of the E d u c a t i on A c t, 1 9 9 5, p r o c e e d ed to e m b a rk on m o v es calculated to c o m p el the applicant to accept the transfer. H a v i ng listened to both parties to the c a se the C o u rt g a ve its verdict on 2 3 rd M a y, 1 9 97 a nd d ue to great constraint placed on it by scarcity of time u n d e r t o ok to give fuller reasons later. T he order given a nd r e m a r ks m a de by the C o u rt on that d ay w e re as follows O R D E R: On the basis that clearly the l aw in Section 42(1)indicates that the T e a c h i ng Service C o m m i s s i on is the o ne that is entitled to transfer a teacher in the position of the applicant, a nd on the basis of the a r g u m e nt a c c e p t ed by the C o u rt that the B o a rd of C o n t r ol Life H i gh S c h o ol h ad n o ne s u ch p o w e rs a nd m u ch less a ny p o w e rs to d e m o te the applicant the rule is c o n f i r m ed in t e r ms of prayers (b) © a nd (d). C o u rt wishes to thank Mr Letsie for bringing to its attention the f o r ms allegedly signed by the applicant but regrets that it c a n n ot m a ke u se of t h em at this stage of writing d o wn its decision, m o r e so b e c a u se they w e re not attached to papers constituting the record before C o u rt in this proceeding. Fuller reasons would be filed in due course. (Signed: M . L. L E H O H L A) 2 3 \ 5 \ 9 7" T he factors that the C o u rt took into a c c o u nt in reaching the a b o ve decision are centred on Section 4 2 ( 1) of the E d u c a t i on O r d e r, 1 9 9 5; reading - " T he p o w er to appoint a teacher a nd to p r o m o t e, d e m o t e, transfer. discipline or r e m o ve f r om office s u ch a teacher shall vest in the T he C o m m i s s i on is defined in the interpretation Section 2 - " ' C o m m i s s i o n' m e a ns the T e a c h i ng Service C o m m i s s i on established u n d er Section 1 44 of the Constitution of L e s o t h o ". It stands to reason therefore that b e c a u se the B o a rd of C o n t r ol of Life H i gh School d o es not appear in a ny of the sections cited a b o ve n or h as it a n y w h e re b e en designated as h a v i ng entitlement to act on behalf of the T e a c h i ng Service C o m m i s s i o n, it has no authority to transfer the applicant w ho is the principal at Life H i gh S c h o ol N e e d l e ss to say the B o a rd is not the C o m m i s s i o n. As s u ch it is not entitled to usurp p o w e rs vested in the C o m m i s s i on in t e r ms of section 1 44 of the m o st S u p r e me L aw of the L a n d, the Constitution of L e s o t h o. A ny p u r p o r t ed e x e r c i se of the p o w e rs set o ut in S e c t i on 4 2 ( 1) of the E d u c a t i on O r d e r, 1 9 9 5, by a n y b o dy b e s i d es the C o m m i s s i on is m i s c o n c e i v ed for it is an e x e r c i se in futility. T h us the purported transfer of the applicant in c o n t r a v e n t i on of S e c t i on 4 2( 1) of the E d u c a t i on O r d er 1 9 95 is a nullity h a v i ng no legal force a nd effect. T he C o u rt therefore o r d e r ed that the p e r i od p r e s c r i b ed by the rules of C o u rt regarding service should be d i s p e n s ed w i th on a c c o u nt of the u r g e n cy of this matter. T he C o u rt further o r d e rs : l(b) that the p u r p o r t ed transfer of the applicant is d e c l a r ed null a nd v o id a nd of no legal force a nd effect © the first r e s p o n d e nt to release the applicant's c h e q ue forthwith. ( d) that the r e s p o n d e n ts be interdicted f r om interfering w i th the applicant's e m o l u m e n ts s a ve by d ue p r o c e ss of l a w. T he C o u rt notices that the applicant h as o m i t t ed to a sk for costs. T h e se w o u ld in a ny c a se f o l l ow the e v e n t. It is so o r d e r e d. J U D GE 8th S e p t e m b e r, 1 9 97 F or A p p l i c a n t: Mr Mafantiri F or R e s p o n d e n ts : Mr Letsie