Moafrica and Another v Attorney-General (CIV/APN 304 of 96) [1997] LSHC 38 (9 April 1997)

Moafrica and Another v Attorney-General (CIV/APN 304 of 96) [1997] LSHC 38 (9 April 1997)

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to comply with mandatory procedural rules, including giving the respondent insufficient time to respond. The Cabinet directive did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination as it was not based on any of the grounds specified in the Constitution. The government is entitled to choose its contracting parties for advertising, and the right to be heard does not apply in this commercial context. The document relied upon by the applicants was privileged and improperly before the court.

Citation
[1997] LSHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Moafrika; Applicant: Candi Bataba Nera Mainoane; Respondent: Attorney-General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
9 April 1997
Case Number
CIV/APN 304 of 96
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (application) / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Freedom of Expression, Natural Justice, Declaratory Orders, Privilege of Government Documents, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Discrimination Freedom of Expression Natural Justice Declaratory Orders Privilege of Government Documents +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moafrika

Applicant

Candi Bataba Nera Mainoane

Applicant

Attorney-General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (application) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Cabinet directive prohibiting government advertising with the 1st applicant is null and void
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were denied a right to be heard (audi alteram partem)
  3. 3 Whether the directive amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Section 18

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to comply with mandatory procedural rules, including giving the respondent insufficient time to respond. The Cabinet directive did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination as it was not based on any of the grounds specified in the Constitution. The government is entitled to choose its contracting parties for advertising, and the right to be heard does not apply in this commercial context. The document relied upon by the applicants was privileged and improperly before the court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The point in limine on procedural irregularity is upheld.