Linkoe FC v Lesotho Football Association and Others (CIV/APN 1 of 94) [1994] LSCA 2 (6 January 1994)

Linkoe FC v Lesotho Football Association and Others (CIV/APN 1 of 94) [1994] LSCA 2 (6 January 1994)

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to ensure its request for postponement was decided before the finals, did not act with sufficient diligence, and brought the application after the event. The finals were conducted in accordance with the Association's rules, which required only two days'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1994] LSCA 2
Parties
Applicant: Linkoe FC; 1st Respondent: Lesotho Football Association; 2nd Respondent: Chelsea FC; 3rd Respondent: Maseru Pirates FC; 4th Respondent: Manonyane FC; 5th Respondent: Roma Boys
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Case Number
CIV/APN 1 of 94
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Discretionary Relief
Source Language
en
Sports Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Discretionary Relief

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linkoe FC

Applicant

Lesotho Football Association

1st Respondent

Chelsea FC

2nd Respondent

Maseru Pirates FC

3rd Respondent

Manonyane FC

4th Respondent

Roma Boys

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion

  1. 1 Whether the Lesotho Football Association acted arbitrarily and in breach of natural justice by excluding the applicant from the 1993 'B' Division Soccer Finals
  2. 2 Whether the finals should be declared null and void and restaged
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to adequate notice and a hearing before the finals

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to ensure its request for postponement was decided before the finals, did not act with sufficient diligence, and brought the application after the event. The finals were conducted in accordance with the Association's rules, which required only two days' notice, and more than the required notice was given. There was no breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness warranting court intervention.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondents