Tsakatsi and Another v Tsosane and Others (CIV/APN 263 of 96) [1997] LSHC 8 (4 February 1997)

1 C I V / A P N / 2 6 3 / 96 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the matter between H A PE T S A K A T SI T S ' E L I SO R A M O C H E LA 1 ST A P P L I C A NT 2 ND A P P L I C A NT and M O H O LO T S O S A NE M O S O LA P A LI M A L E H A NA M A K O E T JE A L I CE ' M A M O L E FI R A N T H I MO A L P H O N C I NA M O J A KI S E L LO T S ' U K U LU E X E C U T I VE B O A RD OF L E S O T HO F E D E R A T I ON OF D E M O C R A T IC U N I O NS L E S O T HO F E D E R A T I ON OF D E M O C R A T IC U N I O NS C O N S T R U C T I ON A ND A L L I ED W O R K E RS U N I ON OF L E S O T HO L E S O T HO C O M M E R C I A L, C A R T E R I NG F O OD A ND allied W O R K ER U N I ON L E S O T HO C L O T H I NG A ND A L L I ED W O R K E RS U N I ON L E S O T HO T R A N S P O RT C O M M U N I C A T I O NS E L E C T R I C AL A ND A L L I ED W O R K E RS U N I ON 1ST R E S P O N D E NT 2 ND R E S P O N D E NT 3 RD R E S P O N D E NT 4 TH R E S P O N D E NT 5 TH R E S P O N D E NT 6 TH R E S P O N D E NT 7 TH R E S P O N D E NT 8 TH R E S P O N D E NT 9 TH R E S P O N D E NT 10TH R E S P O N D E NT 11TH R E S P O N D E NT 12TH R E S P O N D E NT J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n o u r a b le M r. Justice M . M. R a m o d i b e d i, J u d g e, On 4th d ay of F e b r u a r y, 1 9 9 7. On the 19th d ay of July 1 9 96 the applicants obtained a R u le Nisi f r om this H o n o u r a b le C o u rt calling u p on the R e s p o n d e n ts to s h ow cause, if a n y, w h y: "(a) First to Sixth R e s p o n d e n ts shall not be o r d e r ed jointly a nd severally, to h a nd o v er the property a nd administration of the E i g h th R e s p o n d e nt to the Applicants a nd the E x e c u t i ve B o a rd w h i ch w as in existence before the 2 nd d ay Of J u ne 1 9 96 p e n d i ng the o u t c o me of this application. (b) T he p r o c e e d i ng of a special m e e t i ng of the S e v e n th R e s p o n d e nt held on the 2 nd d ay of J u ne 1 9 96 shall n ot declared (sic) null a nd v o id (c) T he decision of the First to Sixth R e s p o n d e n t s, purporting to be the E x e c u t i ve B o a rd w h i ch w as t a k en on the 12th d ay of J u ne 1 9 96 shall not be declared null a nd void ( d) T he purported dection (sic) of the First to the Sixth R e s p o n d e n ts to the Executive B o a rd of the Eighth R e s p o n d e nt shall not be declared null a nd void (e) First to Sixth R e s p o n d e n ts shall not be interdicted forthwith f r om unlawfully interfering with the property, administration a nd affairs of the Eighth R e s p o n d e nt p e n d i ng the o u t c o me of this application (f) R e s p o n d e n ts shall not be ordered to p ay the costs of this application (g) Applicants shall not be granted such further and/or alternative relief In the special circumstances of the case prayers (a) a nd (e) w e re ordered to operate with i m m e d i a te effect p e n d i ng the finalisation of this application a nd after several extensions of the R u le the matter w as finally a r g u ed before me on 10th D e c e m b e r, 1 9 9 6. M r . M p o po for the R e s p o n d e n ts raised 3 points in limine n a m e l y: ( 1) that this H o n o u r a b le C o u rt h as no jurisdiction in this matter by reason of the fact that it c o n c e r ns trade unions w h i ch is,so the a r g u m e nt g o e s, the p u r v i ew of the L a b o ur C o u r t, (2) that there are material disputes of facts, (3) that there w as no u r g e n cy s h o wn in the matter. After hearing a r g u m e nt f r om both sides in the matter I dismissed the points in limine w i th costs a nd intimated that the reasons thereof w o u ld be filed together w i th r e a s o ns in the m a in application. T h e se are the reasons: J U R I S D I C T I ON M r. M p o po s u b m i ts that this is a matter that c o n c e r ns trade unions a nd that therefore the L a b o ur C o u rt has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter in terms of section 25 (1) of the L a b o ur C o de O r d er 1 9 92 w h i ch provides as follows: " 2 5. Exclusive Civil jurisdiction (1) the jurisdiction of the L a b o ur C o u rt shall be exclusive as regards a ny matter provided for u n d er the C o d e, including but not limited to trade disputes. No ordinary or subordinate court shall exercise its civil jurisdiction in regard to a ny matter p r o v i d ed for u n d er the c o d e ." N ow the term trade dispute is defined in section 3 of the L a b o ur C o de O r d er 1 9 92 as " a ny dispute or difference b e t w e en e m p l o y e rs or then- organisations a nd e m p l o y e es or their organisations, or b e t w e en e m p l o y e es a nd e m p l o y e e s, c o n n e c t ed with the e m p l o y m e nt or n o n - e m p l o y m e n t, or the terms of the e m p l o y m e n t, or the conditions of labour, of a ny person." A p p l y i ng the a b o ve definition of a trade dispute I am satisfied that the case before me has got nothing to do with a trade dispute nor is it a dispute b e t w e en e m p l o y er a nd e m p l o y ee or b e t w e en e m p l o y e es a nd e m p l o y e es c o n n e c t ed with the e m p l o y m e nt or n o n - e m p l o y m e n t, or the terms of the e m p l o y m e n t, or the conditions of labour of a ny person. As I see it the case before me is basically a dispute b e t w e en trade unions a nd individual m e m b e rs of the Executive B o a rd of L e s o t ho Federation of D e m o c r a t ic U n i o n s. In Attorney-General v L e s o t ho T e a c h e rs T r a de U n i on a nd 4 others C of A ( C i v) N o. 29 of 1 9 95 Steyn JA (as he then w a s) h ad this to say at p a ge 2 2: "In essence, the L a b o ur C o u rt is a C o u rt of equity enjoined to k e ep the scales of justice in balance b e t w e en the conflicting d e m a n ds of e m p l o y er a nd e m p l o y e e. Disputes that c o me before it are not "civil proceedings" as provided for in either section 2 of the H i gh C o u rt A ct or T he Constitution. T h e r e f o r e, great care m u st be t a k en to ensure that the a m b it of its jurisdiction is n ot e x t e n d ed to matters w h i ch w o u ld require it to decide issues w h i ch are n ot c o m p a t i b le w i th the p u r p o se for w h i ch s u ch tribunal w as created. In this respect, section 24 of the C o de a nd the definition of "trade dispute" h a ve b e en enacted to circumscribe the limitations on its jurisdiction s u ch matters are "matter(s) p r o v i d ed for u n d er the C o d e, including but n ot limited to trade disputes" a nd w h en formalised are n ot converted into "civil p r o c e e d i n g s" as defined in the Constitution a nd in the H i gh C o u rt A c t. It m u st be stressed, h o w e v e r, that o ur Courts s h o u ld be astute to ensure that the p o w e rs of the L a b o ur C o u rt to adjudicate u p on s u ch matters are strictly confined to matters that are either "trade disputes" stricto c e n s u, or are clearly identifiable as issues c o n t e m p l a t ed by the legislature as defined in section 2 4 ." I respectfully associate m y s e lf w i th these r e m a r k s. It is significant that section 1 19 of the Constitution of L e s o t ho confers unlimited jurisdiction in the H i gh C o u rt as follows: " 1 1 9. (1) T h e re shall be a H i gh C o u rt w h i ch shall h a ve unlimited original jurisdiction to hear a nd d e t e r m i ne a ny civil or criminal p r o c e e d i n gs a nd the p o w er to r e v i ew the decisions or p r o c e e d i n gs of a ny subordinate or inferior court, court-martial, tribunal, b o a rd or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or public administrative functions u n d er a ny l aw a nd s u ch jurisdiction a nd p o w e rs as m ay be conferred on it by this Constitution or by or u n d er a ny other law." Section 2 of the Constitution also significantly provides as follows: " T h is Constitution is the s u p r e me l aw of L e s o t ho a nd if a ny other l aw is inconsistent w i th this Constitution, that other l aw shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void" Section 2 of the H i gh C o u rt A ct N o .5 of 1 9 78 (as a m e n d e d) also provides in no uncertian t e r ms that the H i gh C o u rt shall h a v e: "(a) unlimited jurisdiction to h e ar a nd determine a ny civil or criminal proceedings u n d er a ny l aw in force in L e s o t h o ." In v i ew of the a b o ve m e n t i o n ed statutory provisions a nd following the c a se of Attorney G e n e r al v L e s o t ho T e a c h e rs T r a de U n i on a nd 4 others (supra) I h a ve c o me to the conclusion that the L a b o ur C o u rt h as no jurisdiction in the matter before m e. I am further fortified in this v i ew by the fact that the case before me is in the nature of a declaratory order for w h i ch in my j u d g m e nt only the H i gh C o u rt h as jurisdiction in t e r ms of Section 2 of the H i gh C o u rt A ct 1 9 7 8. T h at there are material disputes of facts. M r. M p o po identified the alleged material disputes of facts as follows: (a) that e a ch party c l a i m ed to be in office; ( b) w h e t h er the t e rm of office of the applicants h ad expired by affluxion of t i m e; (c) w h e t h er the applicants h ad b e en lawfully d i s m i s s e d; (d) w h e t h er there h ad b e en a ny m e e t i ng as p r o v i d ed for by the Constitution of the eighth R e s p o n d e nt n a m e ly L e s o t ho F e d e r a t i on of D e m o c r a t ic U n i o n s. It b e c a me a p p a r e nt to me f r om the p r o p er r e a d i ng of the p a p e rs filed before me that all the alleged disputes of facts are m a t t e rs w h i ch are c o v e r ed by the Constitution of the eighth R e s p o n d e nt w h i ch w as a n n e x ed to the p a p e rs b e f o re m e. In the c i r c u m s t a n c es I c a me to the c o n c l u s i on that there w e re no g e n u i ne or material disputes of facts w h i ch c o u ld n ot be d e c i d ed on p a p er w i th the additional h e lp of the eighth R e s p o n d e n t 's Constitution. In e s s e n ce the task of the court, as I s aw it, w as s i m p ly to interpret the said Constitution. T h at there w as no u r g e n cy s h o wn in the matter. In p a r a g r a p hs 3 2, 33 a nd 35 of his f o u n d i ng affidavit H a pe Tsakatsi d e p o s es as follows:- " 3 2. Sixth R e s p o n d e nt is no longer using the E i g h th R e s p o n d e n t 's offices b ut he h as m o v ed to old Christian C o u n c i l 's H o u se a nd he is purporting, together w i th First R e s p o n d e nt to Fifth R e s p o n d e n t s, to be w o r k i ng as the E x e c u t i ve C o m m i t t ee and/or B o a rd of the Eighth R e s p o n d e n t. 3 3. As the result of this situation the affairs of the E i g h th R e s p o n d e nt are a d m i n i s t e r ed by t wo b o d i es i.e. o ne p u r p o r t ed to h a ve b e en r e m o v ed f r om the office a nd the o ne r un by First to Sixth R e s p o n d e n ts thereby c a u s i ng confusion. 3 5. T h is is a m a t t er for urgent relief regard b e i ng h ad to the proper administration of the U n i on as the rights of m e m b e rs are being threatened by this situation n ow prevailing." I o b s e r ve that in their o p p o s i ng affidavits neither M o h l o lo T s o s a ne nor Sello T s ' u k u lu d e ny the aforesaid specific allegation in p a r a g r a ph 35 of the founding affidavit of H a pe Tsakatsi that the rights of m e m b e rs are b e i ng "threatened" by the situation prevailing n a m e ly that the affairs of the eighth r e s p o n d e nt are b e i ng administered by t wo b o d i es "thereby causing confusion." I f o u nd as a fact therefore that there w as confusion a nd that the rights of the m e m b e rs of the eighth respondents w e re threatened. F or my part this court w as certainly not prepared to allow s u ch a chaotic a nd unruly situation to prevail a ny further in the matter to the detriment of m e m b e rs of the eighth respondent. T he court h ad to u p h o ld the letter a nd spirit of the Constitution of the eighth r e s p o n d e nt in the matter before it w as too late. In the circumstances therefore I c a me to the conclusion that the matter w as i n d e ed urgent. After I h ad dismissed the points in limine with costs as earlier stated M r. K h a u oe then m a de an application f r om the bar for a m e n d m e nt of prayers 2 (a) a nd (c) of the N o t i ce of M o t i on to delete the date of 2 nd d ay of J u ne 1 9 96 a nd 12th d ay of J u ne 1 9 96 appearing therein a nd to substitute it with the date of the 8th d ay of J u ne 1 9 9 6. M r . M p o po objected on the sole g r o u nd that he w as not served with a N o t i ce of a m e n d m e n t. He w as h o w e v er unable to s h ow that there w o u ld be a ny prejudice to his clients if the a m e n d m e nt w as granted. I could not find or perceive prejudice either. In the circumstances I i n v o k ed the provisions of R u le 59 of the H i gh C o u rt R u l es in the interests of justice a nd accordingly granted the application for a m e n d m e n t. I p r o c e ed then to deal with the merits of the application before me a nd in d o i ng so I observe straight a w ay that the following scenario is indeed c o m m on c a u se in this matter: In J u ne 1 9 94 the Applicants a nd sixth R e s p o n d e nt Sello Ts'ukulu w e re duly elected as office bearers of the Seventh R e s p o n d e nt n a m e ly T he Executive B o a rd of L e s o t ho Federation of D e m o c r a t ic U n i o ns w h i ch is the b o a rd governing the eighth R e s p o n d e n t. T he First Applicant w as elected as President while the S e c o nd Applicant w as Assistant General Secretary in the Executive C o m m i t t ee thereof T he Sixth R e s p o n d e nt w as the Secretary General. N ow Section 4.7 of the Constitution of L e s o t ho Federation of D e m o c r a t ic U n i o ns (eighth R e s p o n d e n t) provides for election a nd r e m o v al of office bearers as follows:- "4.7.1 T he E x e c u t i ve C o m m i t t ee shall be elected biennially at e v e ry Biennial (Conference. N o t w i t h s t a n d i ng the f o r e g o i n g, as a ny m e m b er m ay be r e m o v ed f r om office by the E x e c u t i ve b o a r d: 4.7.4 T he office bearers of the F e d e r a t i o n, shall h o ld office for a p e r i od of t wo ( 2) years. 4.7.5 T he office bearers of the Beinnial (sic) C o n f e r e n ce shall also be the office bearers of the E x e c u t i ve B o a rd a nd E x e c u t i ve C o m m i t t e e. 4.7.6 T he office bearers shall v a c a te their seats during their t e rm of office if t h ey c e a se to be m e m b e rs of the affiliate u n i o ns or if a Special Beinnial (sic) C o n f e r e n ce so d e c i de by resolution carried by t wo thirds (2/3) majority. V a c a n c i es o c c u r i ng in the positions of the office b e a r e rs shall be filled by the E x e c u t i ve B o a rd on n o m i n a t i on d u ly s e c o n d e d ." In p a r a g r a p hs 25 - 26 of his f o u n d i ng affidavit the 1st A p p l i c a nt H a pe Tsakatsi a v e rs as f o l l o w s: " 2 5. On or a b o ut the 12th d ay of J u ne 1 9 96 I received an information that ail the m e m b e rs of the Executive C o m m i t t ee of w h i ch I am the President h a ve b e en r e m o v ed f r om the office. I h ad not received a ny notification to that effect. I h o w e v er decided to ignore the s a me as I did not h a ve a ny official notification f r om a ny authority w i th s u ch p o w e rs to r e m o ve my c o m m i t t ee including me f r om the duly elected c o m m i t t e e. 2 6. To the best of my k n o w l e d ge my c o m m i t t ee h ad n e v er set (sic) to decide a ny urgent matter involving the Federation for expeditions (sic) information of the Executive B o a rd n or has there ever (sic) a ny m e e t i ng of the Executive B o a rd to call an extra-ordinary conference in terms of the constitution." H a pe Tsakatsi c o n c l u d es in paragraph 34 of his founding affidavit:- "I aver that regard b e i ng h ad to the forgoing our r e m o v al f r om the office is unlawful as it is unconstitutional." T he R e s p o n d e n t s' a n s w er to these allegations is contained in paragraphs 10 - 11 a nd 18 of the o p p o s i ng affidavit of M o h l o lo T s ' o s a ne as follows:- "10. AD P A R A G R A PH 25 I c o n f i rm that a letter dated 12/06/96 w as written a nd h a nd delivered to first Applicant a nd received on the s a me date. 1 d e ny that all m e m b e rs of the executive c o m m i t t ee w e re r e m o v e d. I aver that the general secretary (6th R e s p o n d e nt herein) presidents a nd general secretaries of e a ch affiliate union r e m a i n e d. O n ly five (5) office bearers w e re r e m o v e d. A n n e x u re " H T 2" is self-explanatory that 1st Applicant w as notified. T he authority e m a n a t ed f r om resolutions taken at a special meeting, following formal notification to Applicants to attend the m e e t i ng w h i ch they ignored and/or refused to attend (see annexures " A ", " B" a nd " C ". 11. AD P A R A G R A PH 26 I note the contents thereof save to say that the d e p o n e nt himself refused to attend a special m e e t i ng petitioned by the affiliate m e m b er u n i o ns together with presidents a nd general secretaries c o m p r i s i ng the executive c o m m i t t e e. T he tenure of office of the f o u n d i ng m e m b e rs of the executive c o m m i t t ee in w h i ch Applicants w e re m e m b e rs h ad expired by effluxion of time in terms of Article 4.7.4. of the federation's constitution a c o py of w h i ch is a n n e x ed hereto m a r k ed " D ". 18. AD P A R A G R A PH 34 As aforesaid the special meeting w as constitutional a nd lawful as s u ch 1 d e ny the contents thereof." T he special m e e t i ng in question w as apparently c o n v e n ed by the sixth R e s p o n d e nt purportedly as General Secretary of L e s o t ho Federation of D e m o c r a t ic U n i o ns (eighth R e s p o n d e n t) in his u n d a t ed letter A n n e x t u re " B" w h i ch reads as follows: " T O: A LL A F F I L I A T ES OF L F DU F e l l ow trade Unionists, Notice is hereby given that s o me of the affiliates of the federation h a ve requested me to call a special meeting of the Executive B o a rd of L F DU as I hereby do. T he m e e t i ng will be held at I. L. S. ( I E M S) on S u n d ay 2 nd June 1 9 96 u n d er the A g e n da hereby reflected in the self explanatory petition f r om the affiliates. R e g a r ds Y o u rs Justice Sello Ts'ukulu G E N E R AL S E C R E T A R Y ." T he petition and a g e n da for the special meeting read as follows: " R E: P E T I T I ON F OR A S P E C I AL M E E T I NG OF T HE E X E C U T I VE B O A RD OF T HE L E S O T HO F E D E R A T I ON OF D E M O C R A T IC U N I O NS ( L F D U) W e, the undersigned affiliates of the Lesotho Federation of Democratic U n i o ns ( L F D U) do hereby instruct the General Secretary of the Federation to call a meeting for the Executive B o a rd on S u n d ay 2 June 1 9 96 from 10.00 A . M. at I . L . S. ( I . E . M . S .) to a d d r e ss t he f o l l o w i ng crucial matters affecting t he federation. A G E N DA 1. H e ad office R e p o rt by the G e n e r al Secretary including all c o r r e s p o n d e n c e. 2. A detailed financial report by the T r e a s u r e r. 3. Failure of the N a t i o n al O f f i ce B e a r e rs to g i ve a detailed financial s t a t e m e nt to all affiliates m o n t h ly as required by the provisions of the L F DU constitution. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. R e l e a se of o ur internal affairs to the m e d ia by certain office bearers without o ur k n o w l e d ge a nd approval. L e g al action by the President against the G e n e r al Secretary without our k n o w l e d ge a nd authorization. Failure of the President to call the m e e t i ng of the National Executive C o m m i t t ee to address complaints laid d o wn by the G e n e r al Secretary in writing in M a r ch 1 9 9 6. T he letter w as further circulated to all affiliates. Nullification of the terribly unprocudural (sic) a nd unconstitutional so- called m e e t i ng of the Executive B o a rd of L F DU said to h a ve b e en held on the 5 M ay 1 9 96 without k n o w l e d ge of majority of the affiliated unions according to a letter f r om the president to the General Secretary dated 20 M ay 1 9 9 6. C l a i ms by the Assistant General Secretary in s o me of the c o r r e s p o n d e n ce that he is a General Secretary of the Federation without k n o w l e d ge a nd approval of a ny C o m m i t t ee of the Federation. R e q u e st for affiliation by the L e s o t ho Wholesalers a nd Catering W o r k e rs U n i on ( L E W C A W U ) ." It is further c o m m on cause that on the 2 nd J u ne 1 9 96 the said special m e e t i ng did not take place as scheduled d ue to lack of a q u o r u m. T he m e e t i ng w as then adjourned to the 8th J u ne 1 9 96 on w h i ch date elections or nominations (it d o es not matter w h i c h) took place resulting in the r e m o v al of the applicants as office bearers of the seventh respondent. T h e re is no evidence in the papers before me that there w as ever a ny written notice to m e m b e rs a nd particularly the applicants, of the adjourned m e e t i ng of the 2 nd J u ne 1 9 96 to the latter date of the 8th J u ne 1 9 9 6. I find that this is contrary to section 4.3 (c) of the Constitution of the eighth r e s p o n d e nt w h i ch reads thus: "(c) Q u o r um of the Executive B o a r d: T he Executive B o a rd s h a ll m e et at least o n ce in three (3) m o n t h s. A majority of the Executive B o a rd m e m b e rs shall constitute a q u o r um at meetings. If within o ne h o ur of the time fixed for a ny m e e t i ng a q u o r um is not present, the m e e t i ng shall stand adjourned to the s a me d ay in the w e ek following at time a nd place decided by the Executive B o a r d. At s u ch adjourned m e e t i ng the m e m b e rs present shall f o rm a q u o r u m. Written notice of s u ch adjourned m e e t i ng shall be given to m e m b e rs w ho w e re absent. Resolutions shall be a d o p t ed by majority vote, p r o v i d ed that full time officials shall not be entitled to vote, The President shall h a ve a deliberative a nd casting vote." I o b s e r ve that this section is enacted in a m a n d a t o ry form. A c c o r d i n g ly I find that the m e e t i ng of the 8th J u ne 1 9 96 could not lawfully p r o c e ed without written notice thereof a nd that consequently s u ch m e e t i ng w as unlawful a nd unconstitutional. N or d o es the matter e nd there. Section 4.6. (e) of the said constitution also provides as follows:- "If within o ne h o ur of the time f i x e d, for a ny m e e t i ng q u o r um is not present the m e e t i ng shall stand adjourned to the s a me d ay in the following w e ek at the time a nd place decided by the president a nd G e n e r al Secretary. Written notices of s u ch adjourned m e e t i ng shall be sent to m e m b e rs w ho w e re absent. T he next m e e t i ng shall constitute a q u o r u m ." In my calculation since the adjourned m e e t i ng w as on the 2 nd J u ne 1 9 9 6, w h i ch w as a S u n d a y, the next meeting ought to h a ve b e en held on the following S u n d ay the 9th J u ne 1 9 96 in terms of this section. Y et on the contrary the m e e t i ng w as in fact held on Saturday the 8th J u ne 1 9 96 in contravention of the said section 4.6 (e) of the constitution. I h a ve c o me to the conclusion therefore that the said m e e t i ng of the 8th J u ne 1 9 96 w as o n ce m o re unlawful a nd unconstitutional. T h e re is again the aspect of the a g e n d a. It is apparent f r om the a g e n da as fully r e p r o d u c ed a b o ve that elections or nominations w e re not on the a g e n da for the m e e t i ng of the 2 nd J u ne 1 9 96 or 8th J u ne 1 9 96 in terms of A n n e x t u re " B ". In this regard section 4.2 (c) of the Constitution of the eighth R e s p o n d e nt provides as follows:- "(c) Business of the Extra-Ordinary C o n f e r e n ce T he business of the extra-ordinary conference shall be d e t e r m i n ed by the E x e c u t i ve B o a r d, provided that it shall not include a ny matters other t h an those for w h i ch it w as c o n v e n e d ." Since the question of elections or n o m i n a t i o ns as office bearers of the seventh R e s p o n d e nt did not a p p e ar in the a g e n da I h a ve c o me to the conclusion that the purported resolution, elections or nominations arising there f r om a nd resulting in the r e m o v al of the applicants as office bearers thereof w e re unconstitutional, invalid a nd a nullity. S ee L e s o t ho C o n g r e ss of F r ee T r a de U n i o ns v Ts'eliso R a m o c h e la a nd others 1 9 82 - 84 L LR 4 42 at P 4 47 - 4 48 w h e re A a r on JA delivering j u d g m e nt of the C o u rt of A p p e al h ad o c c a s i on to deal with a substantially similar situation in like m a n n e r. B e c a u se of the conclusion at w h i ch I h a ve arrived in this matter it is strictly u n n e c e s s a ry for me to consider other issues raised in this application s a ve to highlight s o me of the constitutional provisions w h i ch w e re transgressed by the respondents in their purported r e m o v al of the applicants as office bearers of the seventh R e s p o n d e n t. In t e r ms of section 4.7.1 of the eighth R e s p o n d e n t 's Constitution r e m o v al of officer bearers is the function of the Executive B o a rd w h i ch is defined in Section 4.3 (a) of the Constitution as follows:- "4.3 T HE E X E C U T I VE B O A RD a) there shall be an Executive B o a rd w h i ch shall comprise of the following: M e m b e rs of the Executive C o m m i t t e e: i t wo representatives f r om e a ch affiliated union with less than 2,000 m e m b e rs at least o ne of w h om shall be a w o r k er delegate. ii F o ur Representatives f r om e a ch affiliate U n i on with m o re than 2,000 m e m b e rs at least t wo of w h om shall be w o r k er delegates of such an affiliated U n i o n ." N ow the said petition a nd A g e n da A n n e x t u re " B" as fully reproduced a b o ve h as left me with the impression that the purported notice for the m e e t i ng of the 2 nd J u ne 1 9 96 w as not addressed to m e m b e rs of the Executive C o m m i t t ee as s u ch judging f r om the fact that they are not m e n t i o n ed at all in the letter. On the contrary the addresses are referred to as " F e l l ow trade Unionists" w h i ch w o u ld s e em to suggest that only trade unions w e re given notice of the m e e t i ng contrary to section 4.3. (a) of the constitution. M r . M p o po s u b m i ts that the t wo y e a rs for w h i ch the A p p l i c a n ts w e re elected office bearers of the 7 th R e s p o n d e nt expired by affluxion of t i me in J u ne 1 9 96 a nd that therefore there w as a v a c u um entitling the R e s p o n d e n ts to c o n v e ne an Extra-ordinary C o n f e r e n ce resulting in the r e m o v al of the applicants f r om office on the 8 th J u ne 1 9 9 6. It is significant that in t e r ms of section 4.7.2 of the Constitution of the eighth R e s p o n d e nt "the election of office bearers shall be m a de on n o m i n a t i on duly s e c o n d ed at the Biennial C o n f e r e n c e ." N ow section 4.3 (a) a nd (b) of the said Constitution p r o v i d es as follows:- "4.3 E X E C U T I VE C O M M I T T EE Biennial C o n f e r e n ce (a) T h e re shall be the Biennial C o n f e r e n ce w h i ch shah" be the s u p r e me authority of the Federation. ( b) T he Biennial C o n f e r e n ce shall be held biennially a nd u n d er no circumstances shall be held later t h an the first w e ek of O c t o b er of the s e c o nd year." In the c i r c u m s t a n c es therefore I reject M r. M p o p o 's s u b m i s s i on that there w as a v a c u um in the office bearers of the seventh R e s p o n d e n t. I find that the Biennial C o n f e r e n ce w as n ot yet o v e r d ue on the 8th J u ne 1 9 96 a nd that it c o u ld constitutionally be h e ld a ny t i me b e f o re the first w e ek of O c t o b er 1 9 9 6. In the result therefore the R u le is c o n f i r m ed as p r a y ed in t e r ms of prayers 2 (a), ( b ), (c), (d) a nd (e) of the N o t i ce of M o t i on w i th costs. M . M. R a m o d i b e di J U D GE 4th d ay of February 1 9 97 F or Applicants : M r. K h a u oe F or R e s p o n d e n t s: M r. M p o po