Motoko V The prime Minister of Lesotho (CIV/APN/0055C/2023) [2023] LSHC 252 (15 September 2023)

Motoko V The prime Minister of Lesotho (CIV/APN/0055C/2023) [2023] LSHC 252 (15 September 2023)

The applicants failed to provide compelling, cogent, or convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of judicial impartiality. The alleged private meeting was a procedural case management session permitted by the rules, and applicants' counsel was notified but failed to attend. The recusal application was brought only after adverse rulings and was found to be a tactical device to delay proceedings. The conduct of applicants' legal representatives, including use of insulting language, dilatory tactics, and repeated non-compliance with court orders, justified an award of costs de bonis propriis on an attorney-and-client scale.

Citation
[2023] LSHC 252
Parties
1st Applicant: Thabo Motoko; 2nd Applicant: Dr Kamoho Matlama; 3rd Applicant: Adv. Bereng Makotoko; 4th Applicant: Masekhobe S. Moholobela; 5th Applicant: Matela Thabane; 1st Respondent: Prime Minister of Lesotho; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Case Number
CIV/APN/0055C/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Recusal Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Apprehended Bias, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Judicial Ethics Recusal of Judge Apprehended Bias Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabo Motoko

1st Applicant

Dr Kamoho Matlama

2nd Applicant

Adv. Bereng Makotoko

3rd Applicant

Masekhobe S. Moholobela

4th Applicant

Matela Thabane

5th Applicant

Prime Minister of Lesotho

1st Respondent

Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Recusal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself for apprehended bias
  2. 2 Whether costs de bonis propriis should be awarded against applicants' legal representatives

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to provide compelling, cogent, or convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of judicial impartiality. The alleged private meeting was a procedural case management session permitted by the rules, and applicants' counsel was notified but failed to attend. The recusal application was brought only after adverse rulings and was found to be a tactical device to delay proceedings. The conduct of applicants' legal representatives, including use of insulting language, dilatory tactics, and repeated non-compliance with court orders, justified an award of costs de bonis propriis on an attorney-and-client scale.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for recusal is dismissed.
  • Applicants’ legal practitioners/representatives are ordered to pay the costs of this application de bonis propriis on an attorney-and-client scale.