Management Committee of Emanuel and Others v Eighteenth episcopal African Methodist Episcopal Church (C of A (CIV) 25 of 94) [1995] LSCA 15 (13 January 1995)
The court a quo erred by confirming the rule nisi on the basis of disputed facts without hearing viva voce evidence; the proper approach was to assume the truth of the appellants' denial.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1995] LSCA 15
- Parties
- Appellant: The Management Committee of Emanuel; Appellant: Puleng 'Mola oa; Appellant: Topollo Matlatsa; Appellant: Rebecca Nchee; Appellant: Monaletsana Qhobela; Appellant: Reverend D. Sentso; Appellant: Zakaria Ntoi; Appellant: Arthur Pholo; Appellant: Peter Kemeng; Respondent: The Eighteenth Episcopal African Methodist Episcopal Church
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Case Number
- C of A (CIV) 25 of 94
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal upheld
- Legal Topics
- Interdicts, Expulsion From Association, Motion Proceedings, Disputed Facts
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Management Committee of Emanuel
Appellant
Puleng 'Mola oa
Appellant
Topollo Matlatsa
Appellant
Rebecca Nchee
Appellant
Monaletsana Qhobela
Appellant
Reverend D. Sentso
Appellant
Zakaria Ntoi
Appellant
Arthur Pholo
Appellant
Peter Kemeng
Appellant
The Eighteenth Episcopal African Methodist Episcopal Church
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the expulsion of appellants from the church was valid
- 2 Whether the court a quo erred in confirming the rule nisi on disputed facts without viva voce evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The court a quo erred by confirming the rule nisi on the basis of disputed facts without hearing viva voce evidence; the proper approach was to assume the truth of the appellants' denial.
Court Disposition
appeal upheld
Orders
- Appeal upheld with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
C. OF A (CIV) NO.25/94 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL In the matter between: THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF EMANUEL PULENG 'MOLAOA TOPOLLO MATLATSA REBECCA NCHEE MONALETSANA QHOBELA REVEREND D. SENTSO ZAKARIA NTOI ARTHUR PHOLO PETER KEMENG AND 1ST APPELLANT - 2ND APPELLANT - 3RD APPELLANT 4TH APPELLANT - 5TH APPELLANT - 6TH APPELLANT - 7TH APPELLANT - 8TH APPELLANT - 9TH APPELLANT - THE EIGHTEENTH EPISCOPAL AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RESPONDENT HELP AT MASERU CORAM MAHOMED P. KOTZE LEON J. A. J. A. KOTZE J. A. J U D G M E NT On the 4th May, 1994, MONAPATHI J. confirmed with costs against the nine appellants a rule nisi in terms of which they were inter alia restrained from making public broadcasts on behalf of the respondent church, conducting meetings or services under its name, occupying any of its property and threatening, assaulting or insulting any of its office bearers. The rule as confirmed furthermore restrained the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th appellants from holding themselves out as pastors of the said church and to perform services, functions or activities in its name. The confirmation of the rule was based on allegations by the respondent church, and disputed by the appellants, that they (the appellants) were lawfully expelled from the positions they held in the church and the resulting deprivation of their rights, duties and privileges attaching thereto. Briefly stated the approach of MONAPATHI J. was that the expulsions were valid "as shown in the replying affidavit of the applicant" (i.e. the respondent in this appeal). The approach of the learned Judge was wrong. The respondent (unrepresented at the appeal} approached the Court a quo on motion. The crucial allegation was disputed. The respondent did not apply for the hearing of viva voce evidence and chose to let the matter run its course on the disputed crucial allegation. In the circumstances the proper approach would have been to assume the truth of the denial of the factual allegation. In the circumstances the appeal is upheld with costs. G. P. C. KOTZE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL I agree I agree I. MAHOMED PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL Delivered at Maseru this 13th day of January, 1995.