Lesotho Co-Operative Handicrafts Ltd and Others v Minister of Agriculture and Others (CIV/APN 230 of 93) [1994] LSCA 93 (18 May 1994)

CIV/APN/230/93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between; LESOTHO C O - O P E R A T I VE H A N D I C R A F TS LTD LESOTHO POULTRY CO-OPERATIVE UNION LTD LERIBE D I S T R I CT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LTD P H E L A - U - P H E L I SE CO-OPERATIVE UNION LTD MAFETENG D I S T R I CT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LTD and THE M I N I S T ER OF A G R I C U L T U RE THE R E G I S T R AR OF CO-OPERATIVES ATTORNEY G E N E R AL 1ST APPLICANT 2ND A P P L I C A NT 3RD A P P L I C A NT 4TH A P P L I C A NT 5TH A P P L I C A NT 1ST R E S P O N D E NT 2ND R E S P O N D E NT 3RD R E S P O N D E NT JUDGMENT Delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice T. Monapathi Acting Judge on the 18th day of May 1994 This is one of the number of cases connected with Co- operatives movement in this country. I need to point out that in the background there has even been a Commission of Inquiry into the Co-op Lesotho Ltd. (Co-op L e s o t h o) This application is primarily about Co-op L e s o t h o. In this matter Mr. Sello appeared for the A p p l i c a n ts and Mr. Mohapi of the Office of the Attorney General appeared for the R e s p o n d e n t s. The A p p l i c a n ts claim, which was originally moved as an urgent ex p a r te a p p l i c a t i on for a Rule Nisi r e q u i r i ng R e s p o n d e n ts to show c a u se w h y :- " ( a) T he a g r e e m e nt e n t e r ed into b e t w e en a t t o r n e ys A. T. M o n y a k o. T. M o h a pi and S. A. R e d e l i n g h u ys in a m a t t er r e f e r r ed to as Civil A p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 93 shall not be d e c l a r ed null and void and set a s i de and the j u d g m e nt e n t e r ed in c o n s e q u e n ce t h e r e u p on shall not be r e s c i n d e d. (b) T he 2nd R e s p o n d e nt shall not be i n t e r d i c t ed from a c t i ng on the r e p o rt of one Mary S t e w a r d. (c) A d o c u m e nt e n t i t l ed " M a n d a te G r a n t ed By O r d er of the H o n o u r a b le m i n i s t er of A g r i c u l t u r e . . ." signed by one L e s o le Jane and Reid N t o k o a ne as well as one e n t i t l ed " C o - op L e s o t ho L i m i t ed D i v e s t i t u re I m p l e m e n t a t i on shall not be d e c l a r ed null and v o i d. (d) T he R e g i s t r ar of C o - o p e r a t i v e s, the 2nd R e s p o n d e nt h e r e i n, shall not be i n t e r d i c t ed from l i q u i d a t i ng C o- op L e s o t ho e x c e pt by due p r o c e ss of law. (e) T he G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho or any of its s e r v a n ts shall not be i n t e r d i c t ed from s e l l i ng or o t h e r w i se d i s p o s i ng of the a s s e ts of C o - op L e s o t ho e x c e pt by d ue p r o c e ss of law. (f) T he R e s p o n d e n ts s h a ll not be o r d e r ed to pay the c o s ts of this A p p l i c a t i on j o i n t ly and s e v e r a l l y. (g) T he A p p l i c a n ts s h a ll n ot be g r a n t ed f u r t h er or a l t e r n a t i ve r e l i e f ." A l so i m p o r t a nt to n o te is that as p r a y er (a) r e f e rs to a C i v il A p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 93 (the o r i g i n al a p p l i c a t i o n) w h i ch r e s u l t ed in an O r d er of Court by c o n s e n t. Its p r a y e rs had b e en f r a m ed as f o l l o w s: " 1. T h at a RULE N I SI do h e r e by i s s ue c a l l i ng u p on the R e s p o n d e n ts to s h ow c a u s e, if a n y, on a d a te to be d e t e r m i n ed by t h is H o n o u r a b le C o u rt w h y :- (a) 4 th R e s p o n d e nt s h a ll n ot be r e s t r a i n ed and i n t e r d i c t ed f r om d i s p o s i ng of the p r o p e r ty of the A p p l i c a n t. (b) 4 th R e s p o n d e nt s h a ll not be r e s t r a i n ed and i n t e r d i c t ed c a r r y i ng all a c t i v i t i es r e l a t i ng to the a s s e ts of the A p p l i c a n t. (c) 3rd R e s p o n d e nt shall not be ordered f o r t h w i th to c a u se to be opened A p p l i c a n t 's o f f i c es and all its d e p o t s. (d) 3rd R e s p o n d e nt shall not be ordered to call back for duty all the s t a ff of the A p p l i c a nt and its d e p o t s, (e) The m a n a d a te g r a n t ed by 1st and 2nd R e s p o n d e n ts shall not be d e c l a r ed null and void. (f) 1st, 2nd and 3rd R e s p o n d e nt shall not pay costs of this a p p l i c a t i o n. (g) '4th R e s p o n d e nt shall not pay costs in the event of o p p o s i ng the a p p l i c a t i o n. 2. The prayer 1 ( a ), (b) and (c) above should o p e r a te as an i n t e r im Court O r d er w i th i m m e d i a te e f f e c t ." The C o - o p e r a t i v es m o v e m e nt in this country is c o n t r o l l ed by the C o - o p e r a t i v es P r o c l a m a t i on N o. 47 of 1 9 4 8, (the p r o c l a m a t i o n) w h i ch p r o v i d es for r e g i s t r a t i o n, c o n s t i t u t i on and r e g u l a t i on of C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i e s. U n d er S e c t i on 53 of the P r o c l a m a t i on the M i n i s t er is empowered to m a ke all such rules as may be n e c e s s a ry for the p u r p o se of c a r r y i ng out or g i v i ng effect to the p r i n c i p l es and p r o v i s i o ns of the p r o c l a m a t i o n. P r e v i o u s ly the H i gh C o m m i s s i o n er in c o u n c il h ad p o w e rs to m a ke s u ch r u l e s. T he e x i s t i ng r u l es a re to be f o u nd as C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es R u l es H i gh c o m m i s s i o n e r 's N o t i ce 1 74 of 1 9 48 of t he 2 7 th A u g u st 1 9 4 8. I am n ot so s u re t h at C o - o p e r a t i v es a re a l so r e g i s t r a b le u n d er F r i e n d ly S o c i e t i es A ct 7 of 1 8 8 2. N o t h i ng r e a l ly t u rn on t h is a s p e c t. E a ch C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e ty h as to r e g i s t er i ts b ye l a w s, in t e r ms of R u le 24 r e ad w i th R u le 2 5. H e n ce t he C o - op L e s o t h o, is a S o c i e ty w i th w h i ch t he f i ve A p p l i c a n ts a re r e g i s t e r ed in t e r ms of i ts b ye l a ws 3, 4 a nd 5. It is u s e f ul at t h is j u n c t u re to q u o te t he p r o v i s i o ns of t he b ye l a ws 3, 4 a nd 5 in f u l l: "MEMBERSHIP 3. Subject to bylaw 4, m e m b e r s h ip shall be open only to cooperative u n i o n s, to national savings societies and to the Government of L e s o t h o. No other society, association or o r g a n i z a t i on and o individual in any capacity shall be admitted to m e m b e r s h i p, 4. Only those cooperative unions and national savings societies which are registered in Lesotho and whose residence is in Lesotho may be admitted to m e m b e r s h i p. 5. T he Lesotho Cooperative H a n d i c r a f ts Ltd., Leribe Cooperative District Union L t d ., Lesotho Cooperative U n i on L e a g ue L t d ., L e s o t ho P o u l t ry C o o p e r a t i ve S o c i e ty L t d ., M a f e t e ng C o o p e r a t i ve D i s t r i ct U n i on L t d ., a nd t he G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho s h a ll be f o u n d a t i on M e m b e rs and t h e ir n a m es s h a ll a p p e ar on t he a p p l i c a t i on f or r e g i s t r a t i o n. T h e r e a f t er a p p l i c a t i o ns f or m e m b e r s h ip s h a ll be o p en to a ll r e g i s t e r ed s o c i e t i es q u a l i f y i ng for m e m b e r s h ip u n d er b y e - l a ws 3 a nd 4 a b o v e ." (my u n d e r l i n i n g) It a p p e a rs t h e r e f o re t h at F o u r th A p p l i c a nt m u st h a ve c o me i n to the m e m b e r s h ip of C o - op L e s o t ho L td l a t er a nd a f t er t he f o u n d a t i on m e m b e r s. T h e re is a f u r t h er n e ed to q u o te t he b ye laws 7 a nd 9 w h i ch c o n c e rn t he r i g h ts of m e m b e rs a nd t h e ir t e r m i n a t i o n. T h ey r e ad as f o l l o w s :- "RIGHTS OF MEMBERSHIP 7. All m e m b e rs shall have the rights and o b l i g a t i o ns provided in these b y l a w s, but in no case shall the r i g h ts of m e m b e r s h ip be exercised until the date upon w h i ch the applicant for m e m b e r s h ip has purchased a minimum of two hundred m a l o ti of share capital (or a m i n i m um of twenty s h a r e s ' ). TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP 8. M e m b e r s h ip shall be terminated by liquidation of the m e m b er s o c i e t y, or i ts r e s i g n a t i on or e x p u l s i on f r om C o op L e s o t ho L t d. in a c c o r d a n ce w i th t h e se b y l a w s ," I w o u ld o b s e r ve t h at the t wo s e ts of c o p i es of t he b ye law s h o wn to t h is C o u rt a re at v a r i a n ce w i th r e g a rd for B ye law 2 7 .. O ne c o py d o es n ot h a ve t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or as b e i ng l e g i b le to be e l e c t ed to the B o a r d. T he m o st r e c e nt a d d i t i on to the m a in l a ws is t he C o - o p e r a t i v es ( P r o t e c t i o n) A ct N o. 10 of 1 9 6 6. I b e l i e ve t h at I am on a f i rm b a s is in c o m i ng to the f o l l o w i ng c o n c l u s i o ns w i th r e g a rd to the f i r st p r a y er by t he A p p l i c a n ts n a m e l y, t h a t :- ( a) It d o es n ot a p p e ar p r o v ed at t he t i me of the d e a l i ng w i th A p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 93 t h at M r. M a t la w as m a n d a t ed by C o - op L e s o t ho to c l a im a nd to f i le the n e c e s s a ry a f f i d a v i t s, a l t h o u gh he c l a i m ed to be m a n d a t e d. A g a in it d o es n ot a p p e ar t h at t h e re is e v i d e n c e, to g a i n s a y, t h at M r. M a t la as he d o es s ay (in the i n s t a nt . a p p l i c a t i o n) t h at he w as n ot m a n d a t ed to so c l a im on b e h a lf of C o - op L e s o t h o. Mr. M a t la h as a g a in f i l ed a f o u n d i ng A f f i d a v it in t he i n s t a nt a p p l i c a t i on in w h i ch he r e s i l es f r om h is p r e v i o us s t a t e m e n t s. It a p p e a rs t h at it is in h is c h a r a c t er to do s u ch t h i n g s. (b) Messrs M o n y a ko R e d e n l i n h u ys and Mohapi signed the memorandum of a g r e e m e nt dated the 21st April 1993 on the a s s u m p t i on that all was in o r d e r. By this I m e an that Mr. Matla did so as he was empowered p r o p e r ly to launch the p r o c e e d i n g s. Again it is i n t e r e s t i ng as to how and why Mr. M o h a pi and Mr. R e d e l i n g h ys sat to sign the agreement well k n o w i ng and having raised up an o b j e c t i on as to the powers of Mr. Matla to r e p r e s e nt Co-op L e s o t h o. This I would p r e s u m e, f o l l o w i ng on that r e a s o n i n g, that Mr. Monyako as an A t t o r n ey was not and could not have been properly m a n d a t e d. This agreement is to be found at page 142-4 of the v o l u me 2 of the Bundle of A n n e x u r e s. Almost the whole of the a g r e e m e nt is i n t e r e s t i ng for w h at it e n t a i l s, n a m e l y, that it v i r t u a l ly j e t t i s o n ed an existing a r r a n g e m e nt whereby the Co-op L e s o t ho was to be disposed of through the m a n a g e m e nt of the firm of A c c o u n t a n ts of W G l u t z, Marais & C r o w t h er who were the 4th R e s p o n d e nt and represented by M r. R e d e l i n g h u ys in the A p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 9 3. That a p p o i n t m e nt has its own h i s t o r y. (c) T he A p p l i c a t i on 157/93 was filed without the k n o w l e d ge of all the A p p l i c a n ts h e r e in except probably the 1st A p p l i c a nt of w h i ch M r. Matla is a m e m b e r, T he w h o le p r o c e e d i n gs w e re u n k n o wn to the others i n c l u d i ng the a g r e e m e nt of the 21st A p r il 1 9 9 2. T he o r d e rs r e s u l t i ng f r om the p r o c e e d i n gs s h o u ld not in law h a ve any e f f e ct on the o t h er R e s p o n d e n t s. To the e x t e nt that they had an i n t e r e st as m e m b e rs of C o - op L e s o t ho it w as i r r e g u l ar that they w e re not c o n s u l t ed nor did they a u t h o r i ze M r. M a t la in the a p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 9 3. T h is in i t s e lf is a m i s t a ke and an e r r or w h i ch had the Court k n o wn a b o u t, the C o u r t, w o u ld h a ve been l o a th and w o u ld h a ve d e c l i n ed to e n t er a j u d g m e nt b a s ed t h e r e o n. I w o u ld c o n s i d er that this e r r or c o n t i n u ed w h e t h er or not and d e s p i te the a g r e e m e nt of the " p a r t i e s" or their a l l e g ed r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s. I do o b s e r ve that n o ne of the m e m b er c o o p e r a t i v es had r e s i g n ed or w e re e x p e l l e d. I w o u ld on the s t r e n g th of the a b o ve r e a s on d e c l a re as n u ll and void the a g r e e m e nt e n t e r ed into b e t w e en A t t o r n e ys T. M o h a p i, A . T. M o n y a ko and S. A. R e d e l i n g h ys and r e s c i nd the j u d g m e nt e n t e r ed in c o n s e q u e n ce t h e r e o f. T h is I h a ve d o ne in the i n t e r e st of j u s t i ce and in t e r ms of R u le 45 ( a) and ( c ). I am n ot u n m i n d f ul of the r e q u i r e m e n ts of R u le 2 7 ( b) and ( c) of the C o u r t. My i n t e r p r e t a t i on of the r u le is that the p a r ty a g a i st w h om j u d g m e nt is e n t e r ed m u st be in w i l l f ul d e f a u l t. T h is was n ot so in A p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 9 3. T he R e s p o n d e n ts did not k n ow of the p r o c e e d i n g s. It is i n t e r e s t i ng to n o te that t h e re has not b e en any a f f i d a v it filed by a ny of the l e a r n ed A t t o r n e ys t o u c h i ng on the v e ry s e r i o us a s p e ct or q u e ry as bo t h e ir m a n d a t e, and on the a l l e g a t i on t h at the o t h er R e s p o n d e n ts w e re k e pt in i g n o r a n ce of the p r o c e e d i n gs in the a p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 9 3. I h a ve a l r e a dy s t a t ed w h at t he m e m b e r s h ip of C o - op L e s o t ho c o n s i s ts o f. I w o u ld i m a g i ne t h at in the o r d i n a ry run of t h i n gs any r e s o l u t i on of g r e at i m p o r t a n ce w o u ld be m a de by the C o m m i t t ee of the s a id C o - op L e s o t ho or i ts G e n e r al C o n f e r e n ce as p r o v i d ed for in i ts r u l e s. On r e l a t i v e ly f ew m a t t e rs w o u ld s u ch r e s o l u t i on t o u ch on the p o w e rs of t he R e g i s t r ar of C o - o p e r a t i v e s. T he o f f i ce of the R e g i s t r ar of C o - o p e r a t i v es is p r o v i d ed f or in s e c t i on t h r ee of t he P r o c l a m a t i o n. T he p o w e rs of the R e g i s t r ar a re i n d e ed v a st u n d er t he P r o c l a m a t i o n. I s u p p o se t h at d o es n ot m e an t h at t h ey o u g ht to be a b u s ed or t h at s u ch p o w e rs s h a ll be a r b i t r a r y. A d i s t i n c t i on is n o r m a l ly d r a wn as b e t w e en w h e t h er o ne h as c e r t a in p o w e rs on o ne h a nd a nd h ow he u s es t h em on the o t h e r. T he R e g i s t r a r 's p o w e rs as a re a l so f o u nd in s e c t i on 36 of t he P r o c l a m a t i on a nd a re c a l l ed t he P o w e rs of E n q u i ry a nd I n s p e c t i o n. T he R e g i s t r ar a l so h as o t h er p o w e rs u n d er S e c t i on 3 7 ( 1) w h i ch a re t he p o w e rs of d i s s o l u t i on of a r e g i s t e r ed s o c i e t y. I n e ed to q u o te the l a st m e n t i o n ed s e c t i o n: " 3 7 ( 1) If t he R e g i s t r a r, a f t er h o l d i ng an i n q u i ry or m a k i ng an i n s p e c t i on u n d er S e c t i on t h i r ty six or on r e c e i pt of an a p p l i c a t i on m a de by t h r ee f o u r t hs of t he m e m b e rs of a r e g i s t e r ed s o c i e t y, is of o p i n i on t h at the s o c i e ty o u g ht to be d i s s o l v e d, he m ay m a ke an O r d er for the c a n c e l l a t i on of the r e g i s t e r ed S o c i e t y ." T h e re is no d i s p u te t h at o n ly a f t er the a g r e e m e nt of the 2 1 st A p r il 1 9 9 3, did the R e g i s t r ar i n v o ke the p o w e rs of and u n d er the said s e c t i on 3 7 ( 1) and o n ly did he do so f o l l o w i ng on the r e p o rt of a c e r t a in M A RY S T E W A RD of the O f f i ce of the A u d i t o r - G e n e r al w h o se f u n c t i on is t he a u d it of G o v e r n m e nt p a r a s t a t a l s. I u n d e r l i ne G o v e r n m e nt P a r a s t a t a l s. P e r h a ps 1 s h o u ld q u o te f r om the m e m o r a n d um at p a r a g r a ph 1. " T he A p p l i c a nt h as n o t ed t h at in the e x e r c i se of the p o w e rs v e s t ed in t he R e g i s t r ar of C o - o p e r a t i v e s, the t h i rd R e s p o n d e nt in t h e se p r o c e e d i n gs by S e c t i on 3 6 ( 1) of the C o- o p e r a t i v es S o c i e t i es P r o c l a m a t i on ( p r o c l a m a t i on 47 of 1 9 4 8) of h is m o t i on h as a p p o i n t ed M rs M a ry S t e w a r d, the C o n t r o l l er of P a r a s t a t al A u d i t, in t he A u d i t o r - G e n e r al to h o ld an i n q u i ry i n to the c o n s t i t u t i o n, w o r k i ng and f i n a n c i al c o n d i t i on of the A p p l i c a n t, C o - op L e s o t h o ". (my u n d e r l i n i n g) W h at is i m p o r t a nt f u r t h er is t h at by s o me c o i n c i d e n ce the i n s t r u c t i on M a ry S t e w a rd c o m es f o ur d a ys a f t er t he i n t e r im C o u rt O r d er in t he A p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 9 3. O ne c o u ld n ot a v o id a c o n c l u s i on that o n ly a f t er and as a r e s u lt of the i n t e r im C o u rt O r d er d id the R e g i s t r ar of C o - o p e r a t i ve i n s t r u ct M a ry S t e w a rd to u n d e r t a ke the i n v e s t i g a t i o n. T h at t h e re h as b e en s u ch i n v e s t i g a t i on is c o n t a i n ed in a l e t t er d a t ed the 2 2 nd A p r il 1 9 93 f r om M a ry S t e w a rd at p a ge 145 V o l u me II of B u n d le of A n n e x u r es and it r e a ds in p a r t: "I r e f er to y o ur l e t t er d a t ed 2 0 th A p r il 1 9 9 3, in w h i ch I w as a p p o i n t ed by y ou to i n q u i re i n to the c o n s t i t u t i o n, w o r k i ng and f i n a n c i al c o n d i t i o ns of C o - op L e s o t ho L i m i t ed ( C o - op L e s o t ho L t d . ,) I a t t a ch h e r e w i th my r e p o rt on the f i n a n c i al c o n d i t i o n ." (my u n d e r l i n i n g) I r e p e at t h e re is no a v o i d i ng a c o n c l u s i on t h at it w as o n ly a f t er the f i l i ng of the A p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 9 3. At p a ge s ix and s e v en of the V o l u me I of t he b u n d le of A n n e x u r es the m a n d a te g r a n t ed by O r d er of the H o n o u r a b le M i n i s t er of A g r i c u l t u r e, C o - o p e r a t i v es a nd M a r k e t i ng d o c u m e nt is to be f o u n d. T he G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho d u ly r e p r e s e n t ed by A L E X A N D ER L E S O LE J A NE and R E ID L E P H E TO N T O K O A NE (as P r i n c i p al S e c r e t a ry of A g r i c u l t u r e, C o - o p e r a t i v es and M a r k e t i n g) "on the a d v i ce of the R e g i s t r ar of C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es and a p r o v i d ed for in t e r ms of C o - o p e r a t i v es S o c i e t i es ( P r o t e c t i o n) A ct N o . 10 of 1 9 6 6, t he s a id M i n i s t er h as d e c i d ed to a p p o i nt p e r s o ns to m a n a ge the a f f a i rs f or C o - op L e s o t ho Ltd w i th e f f e ct f r om the 1 9 th F e b r u a r y, 1 9 93 to 3 1 st D e c e m b er 1 9 9 3 ." I o b s e r ve that s e c t i on 1 1 ( 1) of the s a id C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es ( P r o t e c t i o n) A ct p r o v i d es that "if the M i n i s t er is of the o p i n i on that a C o m m i t t ee of a r e g i s t e r ed S o c i e ty is n ot p e r f o r m i ng its d u t i es p r o p e r ly he m ay take a ny of the two s t e p s, ( a) t a ke no a c t i on or (b) d i s s o l ve the C o m m i t t ee and a p p o i nt a s u i t a b le p e r s on to m a n a ge the a f f a i rs of a s o c i e ty for a p e r i od n ot e x c e e d i ng two y e a r s ." I do n ot e v en w a nt to q u e s t i on (at t h is s t a g e) t h at the C o - o p e r a t i v es P r o t e c t i on A ct s h a ll be c o n s t r u ed as o ne w i th the S o c i e t i es P r o c l a m a t i o n. But I h a ve two w o r r i es a b o ut the h i s t o ry of the m a t t er n a m e l y: (a) W h e t h er it h as b e en p r o v ed t h at the M i n i s t er had g i v en t he C o m m i t t ee of the C o - op L e s o t ho an o p p o r t u n i ty to s t a te i ts o b j e c t i on to the R e g i s t r a r. (b) T h at w h i le in the said s e c t i on 1 1, the M i n i s t er is e m p o w e r ed to a p p o i nt a s o rt of a m a n a g er in the p l a ce of the C o m m i t t ee t h is e n t a i ls t he f u r t h er o b j e c t i v e s; ( i) to r e c o v er the a s s e ts a nd d i s c h a r ge the l i a b i l i t i es of the s o c i e ty a nd t a ke s u ch o t h er s t e ps as m ay be in its i n t e r e s t ( v i de s u b s e c t i on 3 ( a ); (ii) to exercise all the powers, rights, privileges of a duly constituted Committee (vide subsection 3 ( b ); (iii) at a period of appointment arrange for the constitution of a new Committee in accordance with the bye laws of the society. This did not seem to be the intention of the mandate. The firm INGLUTZ/MARAIS & GROWTHER was appointed as managers for other purposes. The powers of this managers were not specified. But what was stated was that "the manager shall execute and perform its duties in accordance with and subject to the provision of the Co- operatives (protection) Act, 1966, the Co-operative Societies Proclamation No.67 of 1948 as amended and the Co-operative Societies Rules Promulgated thereunder." The vagueness with which the directive was drawn was deliberate and done with the knowledge that the Minister was exceeding his powers or as ultimately proved, he was giving the managers more powers than they would be entitled to, even on the strength of the said section 11 (1) It turned out that "All terms of the specific terms of r e f e r e n ce and p r o p o s al by the said m a n a g er d a t ed the 1 6 th F e b r u a ry 1 9 9 3" m e a nt a p r o p o s al of a D i v e s t i t u re I m p l e m e n t a t i on P l a n. T he p l an c o n c e r n e d: (a) T he e f f i c i e nt d i s p o s al of all the a s s e t s; (b) c l o s i ng the o p e r a t i o ns of C o - op L e s o t h o; ( c) t e r m i n a t i ng the e m p l o y m e nt of all s t a ff on the 2 8 th F e b r u a ry 1 9 9 3. All t h is is c o n s i s t e nt w i th the P l a n. To d i v e st is d e f i n ed as "to d e p r i ve or d i s p o s s e ss of a title or r i g ht (eg of an e s t a t e ). D i v e s t i t u re In a n t i - t r u st law, the O r d er of C o u rt to a d e f e n d a nt (e.g. C o r p o r a t i o n) to d i v e st i t s e lf of p r o p e r t y, a s u b s i d i a ry s e c u r i t i e s, or o t h er a s s e t s. - See B l a c k 's Law D i c t i o n a r y, 1 9 8 3, ed ( U S A ). T he C o n c i se O x f o rd D i c t i o n a r y, d e f i n es d i v e st as " d e p r i v e, d i s p o s s e s s, f r e e, r i d ". T he D i v e s t i t u re p l an m a de by I N G L U T Z / M A R A IS & C R O W T H ER is a c o m p r e h e n s i ve p l an r u n n i ng f r om p a ge 9 to p a ge 75 of V o l u me one of the B u n d le of A n n e x u r e s. T he p o i nt is b e i ng m a de that the o n ly p u r p o se of the a p p o i n t m e nt of the m a n a g er by the M i n i s t er w as n o ne o t h er than to d i s p o se of the a s s e ts of C o - op L e s o t ho L t d. T h is d i v e s t i t u re p r o g r a m me s e e ms to h a ve b e en (and t h is is c o m m on c a u s e) to f a c i l i t a te t he p r i v a t i z a t i on of the C o - op L e s o t h o. T h at is w hy the R e s o l u t i on of the B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs of the C o - Op L e s o t ho d a t ed t he 2 6 th D e c e m b er 1 9 92 s t a t es t h a t: "at a s p e c i al m e e t i ng on p r i v a t i z a t i on of C o - Op L e s o t ho Ltd r e s o l v ed in f a v o ur of p r i v a t i z a t i on of C o - Op L e s o t ho Ltd as c o n t a i n ed in p r o j e ct d o c u m e nt s i g n ed by L e s o t ho G o v e r n m e nt and the G o v e r n m e nt of the U S A ," ( s ee p a ge 4 v o l. B u n d le of A n n e x u r e s) I did not see a n y w h e re in the R e g u l a t i o ns of the C o- op L e s o t ho that a B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs w o u ld be e m p o w e r ed to do w h at it p u r p o r t ed to d o. 1 h a ve h ad a good l o ok i n to the b ye law 33 ( D u t i es a nd p o w e rs of the B o a r d) 59 ( D i s p o s al of net s u r p l u s) and b ye law 53 ( l i q u i d a t i o n ). It did not a p p e ar that the B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs w as e m p o w e r ed to do w h at a m o u n ts to d i s p o s al of the a s s e ts of t he C o - op L e s o t ho or in e f f e ct i ts l i q u i d a t i o n. I n c i d e n t a l ly (in r e f e r e n ce to B ye law 5 3 ), I did n ot o b s e r ve that the o f f i ce of the C o m m i s s i o n er of C o - o p e r a t i v es is p r o v i d ed for ( a n y w h e re e l s e) in any of the l a w s. T h is a p p e a rs to be an a n o m a l y. It is c o m m on c a u se t h at t he B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs of C o - op L e s o t ho is a p p o i n t ed by the M i n i s t er p u r p o r t e d ly in t e r ms of s e c t i on 1 1 ( 1) of the C o - o p e r a t i v es s o c i e t i es A ct 1 9 6 6, as s t a t ed in the R e s p o n d e n ts R e p l y i ng A f f i d a v i t s. I h a ve in the p r o c e e d i ng p a r a g r a p hs i n d i c a t ed w hy I f o u nd f a u lt w i th the u se of the Minister's powers in appointing a manager or managers. Central to this would be that the Applicants ought to have been called and ought to have been consulted. They have not been called. It will be observed that this application is about the membership and the participation of the Applicants in the affairs of Co-op Lesotho. I do observe that nowhere in the laws of the Co- operatives movement would the Minister be entitled to do what he purported to do. It does appear therefore that the Minister's use of his powers in appointing a Board of Directions was ultra- vires. Alternatively, equally blameworthy, would be the use of the provisions of a law intended for one purpose for a different purpose. The Applicants have submitted that this practice was fraudulent and was intended to benefit certain people and interests and certainly not the owners of the Co-op Lesotho. I would agree. I do not see how the Minister would be entitled to appoint a Board of Directors and disregard the provisions which direct as to how a Committee of a Co-operative such as Co-op Lesotho ought to be elected and brought into being. It meant that the Co-op Lesotho ended up being run as a Government parastatal not a Co-operative Society. One would have thought that the appointment of Mrs Steward was merely for fortuitous. But it was not. The bye laws of Co-op Lesotho provide for the holding of Annual General Meetings (see bye-laws 15 to 2 6 ). A General M e e t i ng in t e r ms of R u le 19 of the C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es R u l es 15 to 2 1) on e a ch and e v e ry y e a r, is to e l e c t, s u s p e nd or r e m o ve m e m b e rs of the Board in a c c o r d a n ce w i th bye law 2 6. T he b ye law 26 p r e s c r i be the n u m b er of D i r e c t o rs and that they s h a ll hold o f f i ce u n t il the n e xt g e n e r al m e e t i n g. S i n ce 1 9 8 2, o n ly a few of s u ch g e n e r al m e e t i n gs h a ve b e en h e l d. T h is was c e r t a i n ly not for the p u r p o se of e l e c t i ng a C o m m i t t ee of the C o - op L e s o t ho or a c q u a i n t i ng the m e m b e rs of the C o - op L e s o t ho w i th the a f f a i rs of t h e ir o r g a n i z a t i o n. But it w as a w i n d ow d r e s s i ng e x e r c i se i n t e n d ed to g i ve the i m p r e s s i on that the m e m b e rs had a say in the r u n n i ng of the C o - o p e r a t i v e. T h is h as n ot b e en s u c c e s s f u l ly r e b u t t e d. W h en s u ch a p p o i n t m e n ts of the B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs w e re d o ne by the M i n i s t e r, not in c o n s u l t a t i on w i th the m e m b e r s, the s i t u a t i on b e c o m es e v en m o re s e r i o us in i ts w r o n g f u l n e s s. W h at w o u ld h a ve b e en at s t a ke w o u ld not be the a s s e t s, l i a b i l i t i es or s u ch b u g l ed i n t e r e s ts of the C o - op L e s o t ho b ut the l i v e l i h o o d, the c h a r a c t er and the s p i r it of the C o - o p e r a t i v es m o v e m e n t. T he e s s e n t i al f e a t u re of t h is c h a r a c t er and s p i r it is the v o l u n t e er p a r t i c i p a t i on by m e m b e r s. W i th s u ch i n r o a ds into the m o v e m e nt p r o v e d, the d e l i b e r a te k i l l i ng of the C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e ty h as b e en p r o v ed b e y o nd a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. T h is C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es P r o t e c t i on A ct of 1966 s e e ms to h a ve b e en the p r e c u r s or for the G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho to p a r t i c i p a te so e x t e n s i v e ly in t he a f f a ir of t he C o - op L e s o t h o. T h is ended up in the 1 9 82 bye laws of C o - op L e s o t h o. The G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho is stated to be a f o u n d a t i on m e m b er t o g e t h er w i th First the T h i r d, the S e c o n d, and the F i f th A p p l i c a nt all which h a ve been C o - o p e r a t i ve s o c i e t i es except the G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t h o. The p r e a m b le of the C o - o p e r a t i v es S o c i e t i es P r o c l a m a t i on s t a t es that the law is to make p r o v i s i on for the c o n s t i t u t i on and r e g u l a t i on of C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i e s. M e m b e rs is i n t e r p r e t ed as to include "a p e r s on or r e g i s t e r ed s o c i e t y ". S e c t i on 21 of the p r o c l a m a t i on s h o ws that only p e r s o ns or r e g i s t e r ed s o c i e t i es q u a l i fy for m e m b e r s h ip to an apex s o c i e t y. The G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho (being not a natural p e r s on or a s o c i e t y) would o b v i o u s ly not q u a l i f y. D e s p i te that c l a u se 5 of the bye laws of Co-op L e s o t ho g r a n ts m e m b e r s h ip to the G o v e r n m e nt of Lesotho I would not i n t e r p r et any rules or r e g u l a t i o ns or bye law as o v e r r i d i ng the clear p r o v i s i o ns of the C o - o p e r a t i v es p r o c l a m a t i o n. N e i t h er did I see the S o c i e t i es P r o t e c t i on Act as p r o v i d i ng for such m e m b e r s h ip of G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho in any c o - o p e r a t i ve s o c i e t y. C o u n s e ls have not g i v en me any a u t h o r i ty for the p r o p o s i t i on that no m e m b er shall hold m o re than one f i f th of the share c a p i t a l. I did not see the bye law 1 3 ( c) to be subject to such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n. It s p e a ks of that: "Every m e m b er shall hold at Least t w e n ty s h a r e s ," At the end this aspect of s h a r e h o l d i ng was never m a de c l e a r. But all in all what s e e ms important is that the Applicants while being m e m b e rs of Co-op L e s o t h o, and having not been expelled and having not been s u s p e n d e d, they did not exercise any right of p a r t i c i p a t i on at general m e e t i n g s, in the Committees and making of r e s o l u t i o n s. This was wrong. To say that the Minister had hijacked the Co-op Lesotho would not be far off the mark. It is also correct that Co-op Lesotho was never the property of the Government of Lesotho. I have already made my remarks earlier in the judgment that the Minister and Mr. Ntokoane did not and would not have power to dispose of Co-op Lesotho. This is moreso when there is no e v i d e n ce that they were duly authorized to act on behalf of Co-op L e s o t h o. That Co-op Lesotho seems to have been mismanaged and was perhaps insolvent seems to have been a fact. I do not see that the Applicants would deny that. The report of Mary Steward seems to confirm this. But then it looks like this was brought about by the Government of Lesotho and the Board of Directors appointed by the G o v e r n m e n t. 1 suppose it can only be true to say that Mary Steward's report was activated by the Minister's knowledge that the Co-operative was insolvent if not on the brink. Having had problems with the Minister and Ntokoane's resolution and the Divestiture Programme the Registrar of Co-operatives then resorted to Section 3 6 ( 1) of the C o - o p e r a t i ve Proclamation. It seems that there was no doubt that the S e c t i on 36 was resorted to after the frustration of the D i v e s t i t u re Programme. A s u b m i s s i on w as m a de that the r e s o rt to s e c t i on 3 6 ( 1) w as m a de or i n v o k ed for an i m p r o p er p u r p o s e. B e f o re we get to that let us l o ok at the full c o m p a ss of s e c t i on 3 6 ( 1 ). It r e q u i r es that (a) an i n q u i ry i n to the c o n s t i t u t i o n, w o r k i n g, and f i n a n c i al c o n d i t i on of the s o c i e ty s h a ll be m a de and ( b) all o f f i c e rs and m e m b e rs of the s o c i e ty s h a ll f u r n i sh s u ch i n f o r m a t i on in r e g a rd to the a f f a i rs of the s o c i e t y ." (my u n d e r l i n i n g) I do not see how far the i n q u i ry or the i n v e s t i g a t i on c o n c e r n i ng the a b o ve i s s u es w o u ld be c o n d u c t ed w i t h o ut c o n s u l t i ng or r e f e r r i ng to the A p p l i c a n ts as m e m b e rs of C o - op L e s o t h o. I h a ve s p o k en a b o ut the a b u se by the M i n i s t er of his p o w e rs in so far he has s o u g ht and did a p p o i nt a B o a rd m e m b e rs of C o - op L e s o t ho a g a i n st a c l e ar p r o v i s i on t h at the M i n i s t er c o u ld o n ly do so a f t er f a i l u re of an e l e c t ed C o m m i t t ee to p e r f o rm i ts d u t i es p r o p e r l y. But the M i n i s t er h as a p p o i n t ed the B o a rd h i m s e lf from o n s et thus s i d e l i n i ng A p p l i c a n ts w i t h o ut a l a w f ul r e a s o n. It h as b e en s u b m i t t ed that the A p p l i c a t i on s e e ks to i n t e r d i ct t he R e g i s t r ar of C o - o p e r a t i v es from e x e r c i s i ng s t a t u t o ry p o w e rs and that the C o u rt w i ll n ot p r e v e nt a p u b l ic s e r v a nt f r om p e r f o r m i ng h is s t a t u t o ry f u n c t i o ns and d u t i e s. T h is a t t i t u de or f i n d i ng is u r g ed on t h is C o u rt b a s ed on the f o l l o w i ng a l l e g a t i o n s: (a) T h at t h e re w as no i r r e g u l a r i ty w i th regard to all i n v e s t i g a t i o ns and r e p o r ts and that there is a p r e s u m p t i on of a d m i n i s t r a t i ve r e g u l a r i t y. (b) That there w e re o b j e c t i ve f a c ts proved as e s t a b l i s h ed in the report by the A u d i t o r - G e n e r al that indeed the affairs of C o - op L e s o t ho were poorly m a n a g ed and the Minister was f u l ly entitled to form an o p i n i on that the C o m m i t t ee of the Co-op L e s o t ho was not p e r f o r m i ng its duties p r o p e r l y, This s u b m i s s i on goes f u r t h er to say that the M i n i s t er was e n t i t l ed to act in terms of section 11 of C o - o p e r a t i v es S o c i e t i es P r o t e c t i on A c t. (c) That the m a n d a te to I N G L U T Z / M A R A IS and C R O W T H ER to pursue a r e s p o n s i b le p r o g r a m me supported by the U n i t ed States g o v e r n m e nt which w o u ld hold s u b s t a n t i al a d v a n t a g es and the l i q u i d a t i on was p r o p er and r e s p o n s i b l e. (d) T h at the w r i t t en p r o p o s a ls m a de by I N G L U T Z / M A R A IS & CROWTHER b e i ng a u n i l a t e r al d o c u m e n t, it could not be set a s i d e. T he d o c u m e nt ought not to be set aside for the said r e a s on and that the a u t h or of the r e p o rt had not been j o i n e d. T h e re is no b a s is upon w h i ch the relief ought to be g r a n t e d, in the p r e m i s e s. H a v i ng r e f e r r ed to the v a r i o us p i e c es of l e g i s l a t i o n, r e g u l a t i o ns and bye laws I w o u ld say that what r e m a i ns to be d e c i d ed is w h e t h er or not the R e g i s t r ar c an be i n t e r d i c t ed from p e r f o r m i ng his s t a t u t o ry d u t i e s, as it has b e en s u b m i t t ed by the R e s p o n d e n t s. The s u b m i s s i on by the R e s p o n d e n ts would depend on the said p r e s u m p t i on of a d m i n i s t r a t i ve r e g u l a r i t y, H as there b e en such r e g u l a r i t y? B e f o re c o n c l u d i ng my r e m a r ks I would q u o te from the w o rk A D M I N I S T R A T I ON LAW 6th e d i t i on by the learned author W. M. R. W A DE at p a ge 467 (speaking of A d m i n i s t r a t i ve and Natural j u s t i c e) w h e re he s a y s: " N a t u r al d e p a r t m e nt of a d m i n i s t r a t i ve law. j u s t i ce has b e c o me one of the most a c t i ve T h e re are both b r o ad and n a r r ow a s p e c ts to c o n s i d e r. The n a r r ow aspect is that the rules of n a t u r al j u s t i ce are m e r e ly a b r a n ch of the p r i n c i p le of u l t ra v i r e s, and should r e a l ly find their h o me in the p r e c e d i ng c h a p t e r. V i o l a t i on of n a t u r al j u s t i ce is then to be c l a s s i f i ed as one of the v a r i e t i es of w r o ng p r o c e d u r e, or a b u se of p o w e r, w h i ch P a r l i a m e nt is p r e s u m ed to h a ve i n t e n d e d. Just as a power to act as he t h i n ks f i t' d o es not a l l ow a p u b l ic a u t h o r i ty to act u n r e a s o n a b ly or in bad f a i t h, so it does not allow d i s r e g a rd of the e l e m e n t a ry d o c t r i n es of fair p r o c e d u r e. As Lord S e l b o r ne o n ce s a i d: There would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice. Q u o t i ng these w o r d s, the P r i vy C o u n c il has said that 'it has long been s e t t l ed l a w' that a d e c i s i on w h i ch o f f e n ds a g a i n st the p r i n c i p l es of n a t u r al j u s t i ce is o u t s i de the L i k e w i se j u r i s d i c t i on of the d e c i s i o n - m a k i ng a u t h o r i t y. Lord R u s s e ll has s a i d: It is to be implied, unless the contrary appears, that Parliament does not authorise by the Act the exercise of powers in breach of the principles of natural justice, and that Parliament does by the Act require, in the particular procedures, compliance with those principles. T h us v i o l a t i on of n a t u r al justice m a k es the d e c i s i on v o i d, as in any other case of ultra v i r e s ." The a r g u m e nt by C o u n s e ls in this matter took a full two d a y s. But at the end of it all 1 would c o n s i d er was that the crisp i s s u es to be decided by the Court have revolved around the f o l l o w i ng (a) That c e r t a in p r o v i s i on of the bye laws of Co-op Lesotho are ultra vires (b) That L e s o t ho G o v e r n m e nt had no legal basis to h a ve been a m e m b er of Co-op L e s o t ho and a p p o i n t ed a Board of D i r e c t o r s. (c) That the A p p l i c a n ts have been sidelined w i th the r e s u lt that the G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho took over the running of Co-op L e s o t h o. I would also find that there is a fourth a s p e ct which a d d r e s s es one of the p r a y e rs directly and is c o n t a i n ed in p a r a g r a ph 14 of the A p p l i c a n t 's founding A f f i d a v it and reads as f o l l o w s: " the 1st R e s p o n d e nt was acting bona fide in e x e r c i s i ng his p o w e rs under s e c t i on 36, would at least h a ve c o n s u l t ed the m e m b e rs of Co-op L e s o t ho before taking this d r a s t ic step and would h a ve c o n s u l t ed them after r e c e i v i ng the said r e p o rt to look at w a ys of a v o i d i n g, if p o s s i b l e, what i s, in fact its d e m i s e ." I w o u ld be wrong if the i n e v i t a b i l i ty of the d e m i se of the C o - op L e s o t ho should be the m a in c o n s i d e r a t i on of this j u d g m e n t. I would also be wrong if I would h a ve to w o r ry about e f f e ct of my j u d g m e nt as a m a in c o n s i d e r a t i o n. I have taken a great deal of thought in what the e f f e ct of my judgment would be on the q u e s t i on the m a n a g e m e nt of Co-op L e s o t h o. But my f i n d i ng seeks to align itself with the need to do justice a c c o r d i ng to law on the facts as I find them. I would find for the A p p l i c a n ts in this matter based on the c o n c l u s i o ns of my a n a l y s is a b o v e. I would make the f o l l o w i ng o r d e r: (a) T he agreement e n t e r ed into b e t w e en A t t o r n e ys A. T. M o n y a k o. T. M o h a p i, S. A, R e d e l i n g h u ys in Civil A p p l i c a t i on 1 5 7 / 93 is declared null and void and the judgment r e s o l v e d. (b) A document e n t i t l ed " m a n d a t e" granted by Order of the H o n o u r a b le M i n i s t er of A g r i c u l t u re and signed by one Lesole Jane and Reid Ntokoane is declared null and void. (c) The Registrar of C o - o p e r a t i v e s, the 2nd R e s p o n d e nt herein is i n t e r d i c t ed from liquidating Co-op L e s o t h o, except by due p r o c e ss of law. (d) The Government of L e s o t ho or any of its s e r v a n ts are interdicted from s e l l i ng or o t h e r w i se disposing of the a s s e ts of Co-Op L e s o t h o, except by due p r o c e ss of law. ( e) T he R e s p o n d e n ts a re o r d e r ed to p ay t he c o s ts of t h is a p p l i c a t i o n. T. MONAPATHI JUDGE 1 8 th M a y, 1 9 94 N O T I CE OF A M E N D M E NT OF N O T I CE OF M O T I ON - Being for A d d i t i o n al P r a y e rs On the following d a ys n a m e l y, the 1 0 th June 1994 and on the 20th J u ne 1 9 94 the A p p l i c a n t s' A t t o r n ey Mr. K. Sello and the R e s p o n d e n t s' C o u n s e l s. A d v o c a te M o h a pi on the first o c c a s i on and A d v. M o l a po on the second o c c a s i on a p p e a r ed b e f o re me and b r o u g ht to my a t t e n t i on the a m e n d ed the N o t i ce of A m e n d ed p r a y e rs dated the 1 5 th F e b r u a r y. 1 9 9 4. T he a m e n d m e nt w as moved and a c c e p t ed u n o p p o s ed on the first d ay of h e a r i n g. T he Notice c o n t a i n ed a d d i t i o n al p r a y e rs n a m e ly ( g) (h) (i) ( j ). T he prayer ( j) is m e r e ly a r e q u e st for a r e n u m b e r i ng of the o r i g i n al prayer ( g) of the n o t i ce of m o t i on to read (b) I must e m p h a s i ze that on the o c c a s i on that the p a r t i e s' C o u n s e ls m et all the o r d e rs w e re i n c l u d ed by C o n s e n t. I did h o w e v er c o n c e de that 1 had i n a d v e r t e n t ly not c o n s i d e r ed t he p r a y er ( b) w h i ch r e a ds " T he S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt s h a ll not be i n t e r d i c t ed from a c t i ng on t he r e p o rt of o ne M a ry S t e w a r d" I did not o b s e r ve that t h e re was any o p p o s i t i on to this p r a y er b e i ng g r a n t e d. On the 1 0 th J u ne 1 9 94 w h en M r. S e l lo and M r. M o h a pi a p p e a r ed b e f o re m e. M r. M o h a pi i n s i s t ed that the p r a y er (h) w h i ch r e a d: " D i r e c t i ng t he G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho and or the R e s p o n d e n ts h e r e in a c t i ng on its b e h a l f, to h a nd o v er f o r t h w i th to C o - op L e s o t h o 's m e m b e rs all the a s s e ts and o t h er p r o p e r ty m o v a b le and i m m o v a b l e, t a n g i b le and i n t a n g i b l e, of C o - op L e s o t ho to the A p p l i c a n ts and o t h er m e m b e rs of C o - op L e s o t h o ", be a m e n d ed by a d d i t i on of the f o l l o w i n g: " w h i ch in t he e v e nt of a d i s p u te is p r o v ed to be the p r o p e r ty of C o - op L e s o t h o ". T h is I had b e en p r e p a r ed to do. On t he 2 0 th J u ne 1 9 94 w h en Mr. S e l lo a nd M r. M o l a po a p p e a r ed b e f o re m e, they a d v i s ed me that M r, M o h a pi has now r e c o n s i d e r ed his p o s i t i on and h is o r i g i n al fear had b e en r e m o v e d. He w as n ow p r e p a r ed to s e t t le for t he p r a y er ( h) as it o r i g i n a l ly s t o o d. I c o u ld n ot h i de my s u r p r i s e. Not o n ly h ad 1 b e en f e e l i ng that the p a t i e n ce of the C o u rt h as b e en n ot o n ly taxed but h as b e en b a d ly s t r e t c h e d. I a l so n ow s u s p e c t ed t h at t h e re is m o re t h an m e e ts t he e ye in this a p p l i c a t i o n. T h is u n e n d i ng v a c i l l a t i on by C o u n s e l s, s o m e t i m es o u t r i g ht i n s i s t e n ce on m i n u t e st d e t a i ls s u ch as the s e e m i n g ly i n n o c u o us p r a y e rs l i ke t he M a ry S t e w a rd R e p o rt m a ke me s u s p e ct that t h e re is n ow s o m e t h i ng m o re t h an t he real s p i r it of C o - o p e r a t i v es m o v e m e nt i n v o l v e d. I w i sh it is not s o m e t h i ng m o re t h an w h at M r. M a t la and his c o l l e a g u es had b a r g a i n ed f o r. M u ch as C o u n s el for A p p l i c a n ts has r i g h t ly s t a l ed that the w h o le e x e r c i se m ay o p en c a ns and c a ns of w o r m s, it is this C o u r t 's w i sh t h at the e x e r c i se s h a ll not be i n t e n d ed to r e s u lt in any c o v er up of s o me s o r t. T he g o v e r n m e nt and the l e g i s l a t u re s h o u ld u se i ts best w i s d o m. It l o o ks like it will be m o st r e q u i r e d. T he g o v e r n m e nt r e m a i ns r e s p o n s i b le for c o- o p e r a t i v es in g e n e r a l. For c l a r i ty I m a de the f o l l o w i ng a d d i t i o n al O r d e rs : (f) T he S e c o nd R e s p o n s i b le s h a ll be i n t e r d i c t ed from a c t i ng on the r e p o rt of one M a ry S t e w a r d. ( g) It is d e c l a r ed t h at the G o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho is not and n e v er h as b e en a m e m b er of C o - op L e s o t ho and is n ot e n t i t l ed to any of its a s s e ts or o t h er b e n e f i ts a c c r u i ng to i ts m e m b e r s, ( h) T he g o v e r n m e nt of L e s o t ho a n d / or the R e s p o n d e n ts h e r e in a c t i ng on its b e h a l f, to h a nd o v e r, f o r t h w i t h, to C o - op L e s o t h o 's m e m b e rs all a s s e ts and o t h er p r o p e r t y, m o v a b le and i m m o v a b le t a n g i b le and i n t a n g i b l e, of C o - op L e s o t ho to the A p p l i c a n ts and i n t a n g i b l e, of C o - op L e s o t ho to t he A p p l i c a n ts a nd o t h er m e m b e rs of C o - op L e s o t h o. ( i) T he R e s p o n d e n ts a re i n t e r d i c t ed f r om i n t e r f e r i ng w i th t he a f f a i rs of a nd t he r u n n i ng of C o - op L e s o t ho by i ts m e m b e rs s a ve by d ue p r o c e ss of l aw T. MONAPATHI JUDGE 20th June, 1994 For the A p p l i c a n ts : M r. Sello For the R e s p o n d e n t s: Messrs Mohapi and Molapo