Lesotho Poultry CO-Op v Marketing Officer and Others (CIV/APN 433 of 93) [1994] LSCA 5 (10 January 1994)

1 C I V / A P N / 4 3 3 / 93 IN THE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the A p p l i c a t i on of L E S O T HO P O U L T RY C O - OP A p p l i c a nt and THE M A R K E T I NG O F F I C ER M I N I S T RY OF A G R I C U L T U RE A T T O R N EY G E N E R AL 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 J U D G E M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n. M r. J u s t i ce W . C . M. M a a u t u. Acting Judge on the 10th day of J a n u a r y. 1 9 9 4, This is an a p p l i c a t i on for : "1 The g r a n t i ng of a Rule Nisi c a l l i ng upon the R e s p o n d e n ts to show c a u s e, if any on a date to be d e t e r m i n ed by this H o n o u r a b le c o u rt w h y: (a) The 1st R e s p o n d e nt shall not be d i r e c t ed the A p p l i c a n t, f o r t h w i t h, a p e r m it in A g r i c u l t u r al the t e r ms of C o n t r o l) ( e gg M a r k e t i ng issue to to R e g u l a t i o ns (Legal N o t i ce Number the of A p p l i c a nt into L e s o t ho a u t h o r i s i ng to import eggs 1 9 6 9) (b) The 1st R e s p o n d e nt shall not be r e s t r a i n ed from d e s i s t i n g, e x c e pt in a c c o r d a n ce with the law to the issue time A p p l i c a nt e x c e pt the law in a c c o r d a n ce with to future p e r m it any such at egg p r o d u c e rs (c) The R e s p o n d e n ts shall not show cause why they have elected to act allow c o n t r a ry to the law by s e l l i ng their p r o d u ce to any p e r s on or body of their c h o i ce and upon the R e s p o n d e n ts d o, failing why they shall not be d i r e c t ed cause s t o p, put be f o r t h w i t h, such p r a c t i c e. so to to to to a any (d) The 2nd R e s p o n d e nt shall not be d i r e c t ed to cease i n t e r f e r i ng by i n f l u e n ce m e a ns of i n s t r u c t i o ns or the with m e a ns other e x e r c i se of her s t a t u t o ry p o w e rs by w h i ch p o w e rs flow from the l e g i s l a t i on d e a l i ng of e g gs in L e s o t ho with the m a r k e t i ng R e s p o n d e nt the 1st (e) The R e s p o n d e n ts be d i r e c t ed to pay the costs of this a nd A p p l i c a t i on s e v e r a l l y. j o i n t ly shall not An order d i r e c t i ng that prayer l ( a) o p e r a te as an interim interdict having i m m e d i a te e f f e c t. This a p p l i c a t i o n, which was b r o u g ht on the 15th O c t o b e r, 1993 is part of a s e r i es of a p p l i c a t i o n s. In these a p p l i c a t i o ns the sole issue for d e t e r m i n a t i on is in g e n e r al the M a r k e t i ng o f f i c e r 's power to issue p e r m i ts e s p e c i a l ly for the import of e g g s. T h e se w e re g i v en to the first R e s p o n d e n t, the M a r k e t i ng O f f i c e r, under the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng (Egg C o n t r o l) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1 9 6 9. R e g u l a t i on 3 ( 1) of t h e se A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng (Egg C o n t r o l) R e g u l a t i o ns of p r o h i b i ts the i m p o r t a t i on or b r i n g i ng in of e g gs into L e s o t ho u n l e ss the importer of e g gs has f i r st o b t a i n ed a p e r m it issued by the m a r k e t i ng o f f i c er w ho is the F i r st R e s p o n d e nt in t h is c a s e. By t h is I u n d e r s t a nd that the i n t e n t i on of the l e g i s l a t or was to p r o t e ct the L e s o t ho Egg M a r k et from f o r e i gn c o m p e t i t i on T h is m u st have been d o ne in the i n t e r e s ts of L e s o t h o 's egg p r o d u c e rs Both s i d es in t h e se legal p r o c e e d i n gs a g r ee on t h is T h e se Egg C o n t r ol R e g u l a t i o ns of 1969 ao f u r t h er by R e g u l a t i on 3 ( 3) w h i ch p r o v i d e s, "No p e r s on shall e x p o rt or r e m o ve e g gs from L e s o t ho u n l e ss he is a u t h o r i s ed to do so by p e r m it issued by the m a r k e t i ng o f f i c er " It s e e ms to me that the i n t e n t i on of the l e g i s l a t or was that eggs produced in L e s o t ho were supposed to satisfy d o m e s t ic demand and only when this had been done and the L e s o t ho M a r k et s a t u r a t ed with eggs would L e s o t h o 's eggs be p e r m i t t ed to go to m a r k e ts o u t s i de L e s o t h o. F u r t h e r m o r e, if eggs were e x p o r t ed or left L e s o t ho in an u n c o n t r o l l ed w a y, a r t i f i c i al scarcity of eggs might be created and t h e r e by eggs from o u t s i de L e s o t ho would flood the L e s o t ho m a r k et b r i n g i ng down p r i c es to the d e t r i m e nt of L e s o t h o 's eggs p r o d u c e r s. Both p a r t i es were in a g r e e m e nt that this was a good thing A p p l i c a t i o ns for export and i m p o r t a t i on of eggs were to be directed to the P r i n c i p al Secretary for A g r i c u l t u re who 1s the First R e s p o n d e n t 's (Marketing O f f i c e r ' s) s u p e r i o r. In issuing p e r m i ts the P r i n c i p al Secretary for A g r i c u l t u re was to h a v e .- "regard to factors such as grade and q u a l i ty s t a n d a r d s, p r e v e n t i on of d i s e a se egg 1n s u p p l i es in L e s o t h o ." R e g u l a t i on 4 ( 2) of the A g r i c u l t u r al C o n t r o l) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1 9 6 9. of the spread and M a r k e t i ng a v a i l a b le poultry (Egg I have u n d e r l i n ed "available egg s u p p l i es In L e s o t h o ." The reason being that a p p l i c a n t 's p e r m it was refused for p r e c i s e ly that r e a s o n. First R e s p o n d e nt is (in D e c e m b e r, 1 9 9 3) of the view that there are a lot of eggs in the c o u n t r y. This was not his view in O c t o b er 1993 w h en these p r o c e e d i n gs w e re i n s t i t u t e d. If my u n d e r s t a n d i ng of R e g u l a t i o ns 4 and 5 of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng (Egg C o n t r o l) P e c u l a t i o ns of 1969 is c o r r e c t. The d e c i s i on w h e t h er or not to issue a p e r m it for the import or e x p o rt of e g gs m u st be that of the P r i n c i p al S e c r e t a ry for A g r i c u l t u re who if he a p p r o v es "shall cause a p e r m it p r e s c r i b ed in the Second S c h e d u le to be issued to the a p p l i c a nt a u t h o r i s i ng the i m p o r t a t i on or e x p o r t a t i on of eggs t h r o u gh the South A f r i c an Egg Control Board or other o f f i c i a l ly r e c o g n i s ed c h a n n e ls . , " R e g u l a t i on 5 ( 1) of the Egg Control R e g u l a t i o ns of 1969 . It seems to me the p o w e rs of d e c i s i on are with the P r i n c i p al S e c r e t a r y. The M a r k e t i ng Officer m e r e ly g e ts i n s t r u c t i o ns to issue p e r m i t s. In this a p p l i c a t i o n, the First R e s p o n d e nt who m e r e ly g e ts i n s t r u c t i o ns s e e ms to have assumed the p o w e rs he does not h a v e. It seems to me the a p p l i c a t i on for a p e r m it must be rejected in w r i t i ng by the P r i n c i p al S e c r e t a ry for A g r i c u l t u re if R e g u l a t i on 4 ( 3) of the (Egg C o n t r o l) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1969 is followed to the l e t t e r. The M a r k e t i ng O f f i c er (First R e s p o n d e n t) and the A t t o r n ey G e n e r al (Third R e s p o n d e n t) have not t a k en this p o i nt The court has no o p t i on but to a s s u me that the P r i n c i p al S e c r e t a ry p r o b a b ly was in the p i c t u r e. I n d e e d, if he was n o t, he o u g ht to have t a k en remedial a c t i on It is m o st u n f o r t u n a te that the P r i n c i p al S e c r e t a ry for A g r i c u l t u re has over the y e a rs a b d i c a t ed his r e s p o n s i b i l i ty a c c o r d i ng to Law and handed the public to minor o f f i c i a ls w h en the law is s p e c i f ic on the p o i nt The c h a os t h at a c c o m p a n i ed this n e g l e ct of duty will soon be a p p a r e nt For p u r p o s es of d e t e r m i n i ng issues in this c a s e, I will regard w h at was done by the F i r st R e s p o n d e nt (the m a r k e t i ng o f f i c e r) as having been in fact d o ne by the P r i n c i p al S e c r e t a ry This d i s r e g a rd of the letter of A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng (Egg C o n t r o l) R e g u l a t i o ns of has b l i n d ed both a p p l i c a nt and the R e s p o n d e nt to the fact that in t h is case in t e r ms of R e g u l a t i on 4 ( 4 ). S e c r e t a ry P e r m a n e nt S e c r e t a r y) "Any p e r s on d i s s a t i s f i ed with a d e c i s i on of styled the P r i n c i p al in c o n n e c t i on with any m a t t er r e l a t i ng to his a p p l i c a t i on for a p e r m it may w i t h in 30 days of r e c e i v i ng the n o t i f i c a t i on in t e r ms of s u b - r e g u l a t i on (3) appeal in w r i t i ng to the The M i n i s t er a g a i n st such d e c i s i on ... for A g r i c u l t u re (Now d e c i s i on of the M i n i s t er on such appeal shall be f i n a l ." The court was not apprised of this p r o v i s i on The R e s p o n d e n ts did not take the point that a p p l i c a nt has not e x h a u s t ed all r e m e d i e s. C o n s e q u e n t l y, the court was not addressed on this point The i m p r e s s i on that was given by Counsel for R e s p o n d e n ts was that the Court would find e v e r y t h i ng in C I V / A P N / 2 5 6 / 9 3, In that a p p l i c a t i on according to R e s p o n d e n t, the M i n i s t er had complained at a public meeting that there were a lot of eggs in the country but p e o p le were applying for permits to import eggs see p a r a g r a ph 19 of 'Mabaitse M o t s a m a i 's affidavit A c c o r d i ng to that a f f i d a v i t, the Minister was t e m p o r a r i ly correct It was in O c t o b e r, 1993 necessary that p e r m i ts for the importation of eggs be issued The First R e s p o n d e nt in these p r o c e e d i n gs does not deny there was at that time a shortage of eggs but says a p p l i c a nt is no more the proper authority to acquire eggs from p r o d u c e rs and to market eggs through licensed d e a l e rs Applicant relies on Legal Notice N o. 34 of 1993 which amended the Egos Trading R e g u l a t i o ns of 1973 and which substituted District Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve Societies wherever a p p l i c a nt a p p e a r s. The court is called upon to d e t e r m i ne the effect of this a m e n d m e n t. See p a r a g r a ph 8 and 10 of M o t e na M a r a t h a n e 's A n s w e r i ng A f f i d a v it in t h is a p p l i c a t i o n. As a l r e a dy s t a t e d, the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt w ho is the 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 and M a r k e t i ng has not t a k en the p o i nt that a p p l i c a nt has not e x h a u s t ed all a v a i l a b le r e m e d i e s, S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt has a p p e l l a te j u r i s d i c t i on in t h is m a t t er of i m p o r t a t i on and e x p o rt of e g gs in t e r ms of R e g u l a t i on 4 ( 4) of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng (Egg C o n t r o l) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1 9 6 9, The C o u rt will a s s u me that he a c c e p t ed the need to i m p o rt e g gs at the m a t e r i al t i me of the a p p l i c a t i o n. No a f f i d a v i ts have b e en filed on b e h a lf of S e c o nd R e s p o n d e n t. The R e p l y i ng A f f i d a v it of A p p l i c a nt did not m a ke the task of the c o u rt e a s i er by a n n e x i ng F i r st R e s p o n d e n t 's letter d a t ed 1st D e c e m b e r, 1 9 93 w h i ch s t a t es t h e re were p l e n ty of e g gs in the c o u n t ry The p e r i od in issue is t h at of O c t o b e r, 1 9 93 The c o u rt in m a k i ng t h is o b s e r v a t i on is m i n d f ul that a p p l i c a nt w as t r y i ng to make a d i f f e r e nt p o i nt from t h at of m e re a v a i l a b i l i ty of e g gs A p p l i c a nt and later on the D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o- operative S o c i e t i es come into the picture in terms of the Agricultural M a r k e t i ng (Egg T r a d i n g) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1973 These took the place of R e g u l a t i on 8 of Agricultural M a r k e t i ng (Egg C o n t r o l) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1969. These Egg Trading R e g u l a t i o ns of 1973 also created a monopoly for a c q u i r i ng eggs from p r o d u c e rs and m a r k e t i ng it through licensed dealers or to the general p u b l i c. P r o d u c e rs in terms of R e g u l a t i on 5 of the Egg Trading R e g u l a t i o ns of 1973 (as a m e n d e d) were allowed to sell only 2 dozens of eggs to any one person per w e e k, o t h e r w i se all eggs were to be sold to and through applicant (the L e s o t ho Poultry C o- o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t y) Except for this change and other minor changes brought by the egg Trading R e g u l a t i o ns the old Egg Control R e g u l a t i o ns of 1969 remain in operation Care had not been taken to make the two sets of r e g u l a t i o ns to fit into each o t h e r. The problem has been compounded by the recent Agricultural M a r k e t i ng (Egg T r a d i n g) ( A m e n d m e n t) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1993 (Legal Notice N o. 34 of 1 9 9 3 ). The R e s p o n d e nt was the first to begin by arguing the a p p l i c a t i on to strike out the following words paragraph 3 (a) of the A p p l i c a n t 's Replying A f f i d a v i t' "in the p e r s o ns of the P e r m a n e nt Secretary First and u l t i m a t e ly the M i n i s t er R e s p o n d e nt merely doing the of I crave leave to e m p h a s i se that p e r m i ts when these r e g u l a t i o ns were p r o m u l g a t ed neither a p p l i c a nt nor any d i s t r i ct or other Poultry in e x i s t e n ce " with issuing C o - o p e r a t i v es Society were During a r g u m e n t, it became clear that these w o r ds really e x p l a i n ed a p p l i c a n t 's view of the history of egg trading l e g i s l a t i on and a p p l i c a n t 's i n t e r p r e t a t i on of it C o n s e q u e n t ly R e s p o n d e nt could not have been surprised or p r e j u d i c ed by t h o se w o r d s. T h at being the c a s e, the matter was argued for two days and by common c o n s e nt each of the p a r t i es asked for and w as given liberty to t r a v e r se w h a t e v er issues he t h o u g ht could assist in the v e n t i l a t i on of this d i s p u t e. At the inception of the a r g u m e nt both p a r t i es kept on r e f e r r i ng to C I V / A P N / 2 2 1 / 93 and C I V / A P N / 2 5 6 / 93 These m a t t e rs are pending only on the q u e s t i o ns of costs but they w e re o t h e r w i se a m i c a b ly settled By consent of both p a r t i es the court was a u t h o r i s ed to take the a v e r m e n ts t h e r e in as if they were made 1n this a p p l i c a t i on b e c a u se they were r e l e v a nt and p e r t i n e nt to this a p p l i c a n t. N e v e r t h e l e s s, the R e s p o n d e n ts were of the view that p r o c e e d i n gs in C I V / A P N / 2 2 1 / 93 and C I V / A P N / 2 5 6 / 93 and the s e t t l e m e n ts of legal i s s u es t h e r e in s h o u ld not p r e c l u de the c o u rt from d e c i d i ng the same legal i s s u es d i f f e r e n t ly A p p l i c a nt was of t he v i ew t h at the c o u rt will find it i m p o s s i b le to i g n o re t he legal i s s u es that w e re e x p r e s s ly or i m p l i e d ly c o n c e d ed by c o n s e nt 1n t h o se m a t t e r s. W h at t he p a r t i es w a n t ed w as t h at the f a c ts of t h o se a p p l i c a t i o ns be t a k en into a c c o u nt but t h at t h is c o u rt s h o u ld a p p r o a ch legal i s s u es w i th an o p en m i nd The Egg T r a d i ng r e g u l a t i o ns of 1 9 73 w e re m a de in t e r ms of p o w e rs c o n f e r r ed on t he M i n i s t er of A g r i c u l t u re in t e r ms of S e c t i on 4 of t he A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng Act of 1 9 67 M r. M o h a pi for R e s p o n d e nt said t h is c o u rt s h o u ld read t h is s e c t i on a l o ng w i th S e c t i on 6. Both p a r t i es did not call u p on the c o u rt to d e c i de w h e t h er or not t h e se A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng (Egg T r a d i n g) R e g u l a t i on of 1 9 73 (as a m e n d e d) w e re u l t ra v i r e s. T he m a t t er b e f o re c o u rt i n v o l v es the m a r k e t i ng of a g r i c u l t u r al p r o d u ce and 1s g o v e r n ed by the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng Act No of 1 9 67 and R e g u l a t i o ns m a de t h e r e u n d e r. The long title of the act g i v es the p u r p o se of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng Act of 1967 as being To c o n t r o l, improve p r o d u c t i o n, p r e p a r a t i on of a g r i c u l t u r al p r o d u c ts and the m a r k e t i ng of to p r o v i de c o n n e c t ed m a t t e r s. a g r i c u l t u r al incidental s u p p l i e s, ..,. and for and In terms of S e c t i on 2 of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng A c t. 1967 d e f i n es " M a r k e t i n g" " s e l l i n g, or p u r c h a s i n g, and i n c l u d es any a c t i v i ty word " m a r k e t e d" shall be c o n s t r u ed a c c o r d i n g l y ," t h e r e t o, and related the The M i n i s t er of A g r i c u l t u re is in t e r ms of S e c t i on 4 of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng A c t i on 1967 e m p o w e r ed by N o t i ce in the G a z e t te t o. (b) p r o h i b it any p e r s on from d e a l i ng in the course of trade with a p r o d u ct in L e s o t ho ... (g) p r o h i b it the i m p o r t a t i on into or from L e s o t ho of a e x p o r t a t i on p r o d u ct (h) e m p o w er in order to carry out the p r o v i s i o ns of a r e g u l a t i o n, a p e r s on a p a r t i c u l ar case . g e n e r a l ly or in I have been invited to d i r e ct my a t t e n t i on to Section 6 (2) of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng Act of 1967 as being the source of the authority by which the R e g u l a t i o ns that are subject of this a p p l i c a t i on were made Minister The by r e g u l a t i on that a p r o v i s i on of a r e g u l a t i on shall apply - provide further may ..to one p e r s o n, group or class of p e r s o ns producing . . or dealing in the course of trade with a product ... but not apply to another person group or class of persons producing . or dealing with a p r o d u c t. It was in the e x e r c i se of the powers in Section 4 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1967 that The Agricultural M a r k e t i ng (Egg C o n t r o l) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1969 were m a d e. In 1 9 7 3, in terms of Legal Notice No 7 of 1 9 7 3. Agricultural Marketing (Egg T r a d i n g) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1973 were m a d e. This were made by the Minister in terms of Section 4 of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng Act of 1969 There is no Agricultural M a r k e t i ng Act of I b e l i e v e, t h e r e f o r e, that page 276 of the Laws of Lesotho 1973 has a printing error The same printing error was made of S u p p l e m e nt No.5 to G o v e r n m e nt Gazette No 2 of 26th J a n u a r y. 1993 The effect of p u b l i s h i ng regulations under a n o n - e x i s t e nt law w o u ld be i n t e r e s t i ng to e x p l o r e. W as a r e c t i f i c a t i on of t h is p r i n t i ng or c l e r i c al e r r or ever m a d e? T h is e r r or is i n c o n s e q u e n t i al and p r e j u d i c es n o b o d y. T h e r e f o r e, the c o u rt w i ll t r e at it as if it w as not m a de The c o u rt will (in any e v e n t) a s s u me t h at it p r o b a b ly w as r e c t i f i e d. F u r t h e r m o re in the body of the r e g u l a t i o ns p r o p er r e f e r e n ce is m a de to the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng Act of 1 9 6 7. W h at s e e ms a b u n d a n t ly clear is t h at the Egg T r a d i ng R e g u l a t i o ns of 1973 m a ke it i m p o s s i b le for any t r a d er i n s t i t u t i on or i n d i v i d u al to i m p o rt or e x p o rt e g g s. Only the a p p l i c a nt w as h e n c e f o r th to h a ve t h is f a c i l i ty b e c a u se only the 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 had the m o n o p o ly to a c q u i re e g gs from p r o d u c e rs and to m a r k et t h e m. The r e a s o ns for t h is s e e ms to be t h at the p o l i cy of g o v e r n m e nt c h a n g e d. The M i n i s t er used the p o w e rs of s u b s i d i a ry l e g i s l a t i on g i v en to him by the A g r i c u l t r u al M a r k e t i ng Act of 1 9 67 to i m p l e m e nt his new p o l i cy U s i ng l e g i s l a t i on is a two e d g ed sword b e c a u se o n ce t h e re is a law, it b i n ds b o th the M i n i s t er and the g e n e r al p u b l i c. S u b s i s d i a ry l e g i s l a t i on both e m p o w e rs and f e t e rs m i n i s t e r i al o p e r a t i on d e p e n d i ng on its terms The M i n i s t e r, t h e r e f o r e, decided to deal with all a c q u i s i t i on and m a r k e t i ng of eggs in R e g u l a t i o ns 3 and 4 of the 1973 Egg Trading R e g u l a t i o n s. In terms of these r e g u l a t i o n, traders were no more to be allowed to o b t a in eggs directly from egg p r o d u c e rs whether in L e s o t ho or o u t s i de L e s o t ho All these t r a d e rs or dealers in eggs w e re h e n c e f o r th to acquire whether by "required e g g s, p u r c h a se or o t h e r w i s e, for c o n s u m p t i o n, resale or any other p u r p o se SOLELY from the L e s o t ho Society registered in terms 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 or from a source a u t h o r i s ed by the m a r k e t i ng officer " C o - o p e r a t i ve Poultry Vide R e g u l a t i on 3 In the c o u r ts view a m o n o p o ly was g i v en to the Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve Society and R e s p o n d e n t s' counsel a g r e es I have underlined the word " s o l e l y" in the above q u o t a t i on from the 1973 R e g u l a t i on on Egg Trading N e v e r t h e l e s s, First R e s p o n d e nt c l a i ms she has e x t e n s i ve p o w e rs of i n t e r f e r e n ce In this c a s e, the L e s o t ho Poultry C o - O p e r a t i ve Society is the A p p l i c a nt while the M a r k e t i ng Officer is the First R e s p o n d e nt They are fighting and have been fighting over the m e a n i ng of the word "OR". It a p p e a rs In b o th R e g u l a t i o ns 3 ( 2) and R e g u l a t i on 4. of the 1 9 73 A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng (Egg T r a d i n g) R e g u l a t i o n s. F i r st R e s p o n d e nt is of t he view t h at a l t h o u gh t he l e g i s l a t u re has said t r a d e rs s h o u ld o n ly buy e g gs from A p p l i c a nt and p r o d u c e rs s h o u ld o n ly sell e g gs to a p p l i c a n t, the l e g i s l a t u re by a d d i ng t he w o r ds " o r" "a body a u t h o r i s ed by t he m a r k e t i ng o f f i c e r" did n ot intend t he A p p l i c a nt to h a ve the sole m o n o p o ly of m a r k e t i ng e g gs A l t e r n a t i v e ly t he l e g i s l a t u re i n t e n d ed the F i r st R e s p o n d e nt to h a ve a r i g ht b r e ak A p p l i c a n ts m o n o p o ly as a c o l l e c t or and d i s t r i b u t or of e g gs w h e n e v er a p p l i c a nt so d e s i r e s. P r i me f a c i e. the w o rd " o r" d e n o t es and a l t e r n a t i ve T he w o rd " o r" h as b e en t he s u b j e ct of v a r i o us i n t e r p r e t a t i o ns C o u r ts v e ry s e l d om i n t e r p r e te the w o rd " o r" as m e a n i ng " a n d" N e v e r t h e l e ss the m e a n i ng of " o r" d e p e n ds on t he c o n t e xt in w h i ch it is u s ed See the case of R e l b o ro H o l d i n gs ( P v t) Ltd v. G a l l o w ay 1 9 73 (1) S. A. 5 30 at 531 CD w h e re M a c d o n a ld J. P s a i d: "A c o u rt of law w i l l, of c o u r s e, not l i g h t ly s u b s t i t u te the w o rd " a n d" for the w o rd " o r" b u t, of c o u r s e, it 1s c l e ar t h at w h e re to g i ve t he w o rd " o r" its literal m e a n i ng w o u ld r e s u lt in m a n i f e st a b s u r d i ty and w h e re 1t is c l e ar that t h is r e s u lt c o u ld n ot h a ve b e en intended by the L e g i s l a t u r e, a court of law will construe the word "or" to mean "and" At page 532E after discussing the facts at great length and checking similar laws in other c o u n t r i e s, Macdcnald J. P. in Relborq (Pvt) Ltd (supra) concluded: "Any suggestion, t h e r e f o r e, that the word or' was introduced inadvertently can be dismissed " The Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines "or" as a conjunction introducing or marking an alternative. In this case we have to exclude the possibility that the legislature might have used the word "or" in the sense of "and/or" This happened in R. v Lucknow Transport 1957(2) S. A. 85 where the word "or" had in that context a potentially cumulative effect where Selke J. at page 85 G H said. "In my o p i n i o n, the word 'or' has here a potentially cumulative effect, and is to be construed as the equivalent of "and/or' I am led to this conclusion not only by the language itself but also by the remarkable consequences which, it seems to me, would ensue .. " The language used in the Regulations 3(2) and 4 of the 1 9 73 Egg T r a d i ng R e g u l a t i on d o es in the c o u r ts view p u ts the i n t e n t i on of the l e g i s l a t u re b e y o nd d o u b t. R e g u l a t i on 3 ( 2) of the 1 9 73 Egg T r a d i ng R e g u l a t i on s u r r o u n ds the w o rd " o r" with the f o l l o w i ng w o r d s '- are r e q u i r ed to a c q u i re eggs " I n s t i t u t i o ns and the t r a d e rs and l i c e n s e es . . for c o n s u m p t i o n, r e s a le or any other p u r p o se solely from L e s o t ho P o u l t ry C o - O p e r a t i ve from a s o u r ce a u t h o r i s ed by or S o c i e ty the m a r k e t i ng o f f i c er " S i m i l a r l y, R e g u l a t i on 4 of the same 1973 R e g u l a t i o ns c l a r i f i es the l e g i s l a t u r e 's i n t e n t i on in the f o l l o w i ng t e r m s .- "Any p r o d u c er shall sell e g gs p r o d u c ed by him o n ly to 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 ... or to a body a u t h o r i s ed by the m a r k e t i ng o f f i c er " The w o r ds " s o l e ly f r o m" and "only t o" q u a l i fy the " o r" and put the d i s j u n c t i ve c o n t e xt intended b e y o nd q u e s t i on T h e re is no d o u bt that the w o r ds "or ... a s o u r ce a u t h o r i s ed by the m a r k e t i ng o f f i c e r" w e re intended to c o n v ey p u r e ly a l t e r n a t i ve c o n n o t a t i on to the word "or" that being the case, the marketing officer is obliged to respect and uphold Applicant's monopoly. First Respondent (the marketing o f f i c e r) can only provide a source authorised by her to do the functions of applicant if applicant cannot discharge his duties and an alternative has to be provided. In Respondent's answering affidavit sworn to by 'Mamotena Marathane at paragraphs 5 and 7, the court (in this multifaceted d i s p u t e) puts under the spotlight the following " 1. 4 of 1973 It is Government's firm policy to encourage local producers so that Lesotho becomes self-sufficient in egg-production and therefore I had issued authority to purchase eggs directly from producers in terms of Regulation 4 of Legal It is Notice No has correct i n s t i t u t ed in C I V / A P N / 2 2 1 / 93 There is nothing in regulation 4 that obliges the consult Marketing applicant before exercising the powers vested in Such a legal misconception her to would law." - Paragraph 5 of Answering A f f i d a v i t. applicant p r o c e e d i n gs Officer or to anybody contrary clearly that be 2. Paragraph 7 of Motena M a r a t h a n e 's Answering A f f i d a v i t. "The statement that Makokos have I a of or any want carte trader traders Again that been selling their eggs on the basis blanche permission granted to all egg producers to sell their produce to consumer contrary to law, is false and Is to denied like reiterate wholesalers and chain stores can only buy eggs from producers if duly authorised by the Marketing Officer. If the applicant is unable to purchase eggs because he offers them a low price, it is their own business. What the Ministry would like to do is to that so competition encourage get a better producers would If the price for his produce. applicant any misfortune, it is only because it is not prepared to offer the producer market prices." suffering is Government policy in matters of administration is often unfettered by legislation. In which event as against government's administrative discretion individuals have no rights that are specifically protected by law. Courts, therefore, cannot ordinarily interfere except very reticently in order to prevent abuses Where, however, government policy is embodied in legislation and uses the legislative machinery to overcome resistance, then everything depends on what the law prescribes If rights are given to individuals, courts will protect them The p r a c t i ce of g i v i ng a M i n i s t er b r o ad p o w e rs to i n t e r f e re 1n a g r i c u l t u r e, t r a de and c o m m e r ce is an old o n e. In the p a st 1t w as r e l a t i v e ly r a r e, in m o d e rn t i m es it h as r e a c h ed a l a r m i ng p r o p o r t i o ns b e c a u se of w h at B a x t er in A d m i n i s t r a t i ve Law at p a ge 13 c a l ls K e y n f s i an e c o n o m i cs A s h o rt s t u dy of the E n g l i sh e c o n o m ic h i s t o ry s h o ws t h at p r o t e c t i on of B r i t i sh a g r i c u l t u re w as e m b o d i ed in t he C o rn L a ws w h i ch w e re a b o l i s h ed in 1 8 46 b e c a u se of t he I r i sh f a m i ne T h e re w as a s w i ng to the o p p o s i te e x t r e me of f r ee - t r a d e. T he r e s u lt of t h is w as t h at B r i t i sh a g r i c u l t u re w as d e c i m a t ed by i m p o r t ed g r a in f r om t he U n i t ed S t a t es of A m e r i c a, T he t wo W o r ld W a rs led B r i t a in and F r a n ce to p r o t e ct a g r i c u l t u re in o r d er to p r o v i de food s e c u r i ty in c a se of w a r. J a p an f a l ls into t h is c a t e g o ry A g r i c u l t u r al i n t e r e s ts n a t u a l ly p ut p r e s s u re t h at p r o t e c t i on of local a g r i c u l t u re from f o r e i gn c o m p e t i t i on be m a i n t a i n e d. The p o st C o l d - W ar e ra h as m a de f r e e - t r a de and a b s e n ce of s t a te p r o t e c t i on a m u ch t a l k ed a b o ut a l t e r n a t i v e. S t a te p o l i c i es s w i ng b e t w e en t he t wo e x t r e m es of f r ee - T r a de and S t a te p r o t e c t i on of e i t h er a g r i c u l t u re or i n d u s t ry K e y n s i an e c o n o m i cs is n ot w e d d ed to o ne of the t wo e x t r e m es ( p r o t e c t i on or f r ee t r a d e) T he S t a te is g i v en e x t e n s i ve p o w e rs of i n t e r v e n t i o n, and f l e x i b i l i ty of r e s p o n s e. It m ay a l l ow f r ee t r a de or m o ve to p r o t e c t i on if the s i t u a t i on c a l ls f o r s u ch a s o l u t i on T h e se p o w e rs of m a s s i ve i n t e r v e n t i on a re n o r m a l ly g i v en by a b r o a d ly p h r a s ed s t a t u te g i v i ng t he M i n i s t er of A g r i c u l t u r e, F i n a n ce or T r a de and I n d u s t ry p o w e rs t h r o u gh d e l e g a t ed or s u b s i d i a ry l e g i s l a t i on If t he M i n i s t er a d j u s ts h is p o l i c y, in t h is legal r e g i m e, he d o es so by c h a n g i ng r e g u l a t i o n s. He d o es not do so in the u s u al w ay of d e p a r t m e n t al d i r e c t i v e s. A l t h o u gh t h is a v e n ue of d i s c r e t i o n a ry a d m i n i s t r a t i ve m e a s u r es is o p en to h i m, it is not r e s o r t ed to b e c a u se e x i s t i ng laws and t r a d i t i o n al a g r i c u l t u r al and c o m m e r c i al p r a c t i c es w o u ld be in the w a y. T h e r e f o r e, the M i n i s t er r e s o r ts to d e l e g a t ed l e g i s l a t i ve p o w e rs g i v en to him by s t a t u te in o r d er to f o r ce h is p o l i c i es t h r o u gh The e f f e ct of d e l e g a t ed l e g i s l a t i on is s p e lt o ut in S e c t i on 24 of the I n t e r p r e t a t i on Act of 1 9 77 as f o l l o w s: " S u b s i d i a ry l e g i s l a t i on s h a ll h a ve the s a me f o r ce and e f f e ct and s h a ll be as b i n d i ng and shall be c o n s t r u ed for all p u r p o s es as if it had b e en c o n t a i n ed in the A ct c o n f e r r i ng the p o w er to m a ke such s u b s i d i a ry l e g i s l a t i on " That m e a ns in the light of a f o r e g o i n g, b e c a u se t h is a s p e ct of A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng "Egg T r a d i n g" is g o v e r n ed by s t a t u t e, it is not s u b j e ct to t he u s u al a d m i n i s t r a t i ve d i s c r e t i on w h i ch n o r m a l ly a c c o m p a n i es the i m p l e m e n t a t i on of M i n i s t e r i al p o l i c y. T he M i n i s t er and his d e p a r t m e n t al or m i n i s t e r i al s e r v a n ts a re b o u nd by E gg T r a d i ng r e g u l a t i o ns as a m a t t er of law D e p a r t m e n t al p o l i cy o u g ht n e v er to c o n f l i ct w i th t he law If t he M i n i s t er f i n ds t h e re h a ve to be a d j u s t m e n t s, P a r l i a m e nt h as g i v en him the legal m e a ns t h r o u gh s u b s i d i a ry l e g i s l a t i o n. I t, t h e r e f o r e, s e e ms in the light of w h at I h a ve said a b o v e, it is the F i r st R e s p o n d e nt ( M a r k e t i ng O f f i c e r) w h o se " l e g al c o n c e p t i on w o u ld be c o n t r a ry to l a w ". If " w h at t he M i n i s t ry w o u ld l i ke to do is to e n c o u r a ge c o m p e t i t i on so t h at the p r o d u c er will g et a b e t t er p r i ce for h is p r o d u c e" the M i n i s t er has b e en g i v en the s u b s i d i a ry l e g i s l a t i ve p o w e rs to do so It h as to be n o t e d, h o w e v e r, t h at if the s y s t em w as o p e r a t i ng e f f i c i e n t l y, a p p l i c a nt o u g ht to r e p r e s e n t i ng the egg p r o d u c e r s. In f a ct be my u n d e r s t a n d i ng is that when the Egg T r a d i ng R e g u l a t i o ns of 1973 w e re made it was b e c a u se a p p l i c a nt was deemed to r e p r e s e nt egg p r o d u c e r s. A p p l i c a nt w as t h e r e f o re g i v en the m o n o p o ly to buy eggs from p r o d u c e rs and to sell eggs to licensed t r a d e rs in order to raise p r i c es for the b e n e f it of e g g- p r o d u c e rs By d e s t r o y i ng this m o n o p o ly the m a r k e t i ng o f f i c er is t a k i ng away from e g g - p r o d u c e rs the c o l l e c t i ve power to i n f l u e n ce and d e t e r m i ne p r i c e s. The next facet of this w r a n g le b e t w e en a p p l i c a nt and F i r st R e s p o n d e nt involves the i m p o r t a t i on of eggs It was the e x p e c t a t i on (and indeed the b a s is of g r a n t i ng a p p l i c a nt this m o n o p o ly to a c q u i re eggs from p r o d u c e rs and then m a r k et them t h r o u gh licensed t r a d e r s) to e n h a n ce egg p r o d u c t i on in L e s o t ho and to p r e v e nt f o r e i gn c o m p e t i t i on in L e s o t h o, In g r a n t i ng this m o n o p o ly to a p p l i c a n t, the M i n i s t er was c r e a t i ng a s i t u a t i on in w h i ch a p p l i c a nt could never be in a p o s i t i on to c o m p l a in that they had no m a r k et Every egg p r o d u c ed in the country could be b o u g ht at a p r i ce s a t i s f a c t o ry to the p r o d u c er w ho in fact c o n t r o l l ed the price t h r o u gh the a p p l i c a nt of whom that p r o d u c er would be a m e m b e r. If egg p r o d u c t i on fell it would be the a p p l i c a nt who would on behalf of egg p r o d u c e rs (who were e x p e c t ed to be his m e m b e r s) who would ask for an import licence to get enough eggs to meet the short fall Is this w h at is h a p p e n i n g? At the r e q u e st of the p a r t i e s, I had o c c a s i on to look at the Answering A f f i d a v it of Fani M a k o ko who was the First R e s p o n d e nt in C I V / A P N / 2 2 1 / 93 b r o u g ht by A p p l i c a n t. In t h at a p p l i c a t i on the M a r k e t i ng Officer is the Second R e s p o n d e n t. A l t h o u gh Fani M a k o ko is wrong to say a p p l i c a nt has not been granted a m o n o p o ly (in the light of w h at the court has found a b o v e) he raises other p r o b l e m s. Among these is the fact that the current c h a i r m a n 's t e r ms of office expired seven years ago. If that is s o, this is an internal matter of a p p l i c a nt It is not for the m a r k e t i ng o f f i c er to interfere The p r o b l em that has been created by the d i s r e g a rd of the monopoly of a p p l i c a nt by First R e s p o n d e nt is neatly put by Fani M a k o ko in p a r a g r a ph 6.3 of his O p p o s i ng A f f i d a v it in C I V / A P N / 2 2 1 / 93 in the f o l l o w i ng w o r d s :- o f f i c er "I am p r e s e n t ly selling eggs to t r a d e rs p u r s u a nt to the p e r m it issued to me by the m a r k e t i ng s o u r ce as a u t h o r i s ed by the m a r k e t i ng o f f i c er ., My p r i c es will o b v i o u s ly be lower than the p r i c es of A p p l i c a nt b e c a u se a p p l i c a nt has to i n c r e a se the p r i c es to make a p r o f it for itself as well as for the p r o d u c er s e l l i ng to it " I am the That frank a d m i s s i on that this i n t e r f e r e n ce w i th a p p l i c a n ts m o n o p o ly must put a p p l i c a nt out of b u s i n e ss u n d e r m i n es the i n t e n t i on of the l e g i s l a t u re (as put t h r o u gh the M i n i s t e r 's s u b s i d i a ry l e g i s l a t i ve m a c h i n e r y) t h r o u gh r e g u l a t i o n s. A p p l i c a nt as a c o- o p e r a t i ve must of n e c e s s i ty seek to m a ke p r o f it for p r o d u c e rs cover its e x p e n s es and make w h at p r o f it is n e c e s s a ry to keep it going w i t h o ut d e f e a t i ng its o b j e c t s. The m o n o p o ly was c r e a t ed for the b e n e f it of the egg f a r m e rs and c o m p e t i t i on was also e l i m i n a t ed to e n h a n ce the i n t e r e s ts of p r o d u c e rs as r e p r e s e n t ed by a p p l i c a n t. If a p p l i c a nt has p r o b l e ms of p a y i ng p r o d u c e r s, these are p r o b l e ms that have p r o p er r e m e d i e s. If, indeed, F i r st R e s p o n d e nt has been at p a i ns to c r e a te f i n a n c i al p r o b l e ms for a p p l i c a nt by c r e a t i ng u n a u t h o r i s ed c o m p e t i t i o n, First R e s p o n d e nt c a n n ot use this to j u s t i fy his issuing of p e r m i ts to all and sundry If big d e a l e rs no more have to buy eggs from a p p l i c a n t, this of n e c e s s i ty m u st lead to a s i t u a t i on in w h i ch the eggs c o l l e c t ed by a p p l i c a nt from p r o d u c e rs must rot for lack out o u t l e t s. The p r o b l e ms of a p p l i c a nt should have b e en faced s q u a r e ly and if they were f r u s t r a t i ng the p u r p o s es of the Egg T r a d i ng R e g u l a t i o ns of 1973 First R e s p o n d e nt should have (after h e a r i ng a p p l i c a n t) r e c o m m e n d ed to Second R e s p o n d e nt who is the M i n i s t er to find r e m e d i e s. The M i n i s t er is c l o t h ed w i th e x t e n s i ve p o w e r s, including p o w e rs to make s u b s i d i a ry l e g i s l a t i o n. U n f o r t u n a t e l y, First R e s p o n d e nt chose to c o m p o u nd the p r o b l em by m a k i ng h e r s e lf to be c o u n t ed among a p p l i c a n t 's p o s s i b le p r o b l e ms of f a i l i ng to p e r f o r m. T h is F i r st R e s p o n d e nt did by illegally and u n i l a t e r a l ly a b o l i s h i ng A p p l i c a nt m o n o p o ly and t h e r e by e x p o s i ng a p p l i c a nt to r u i n o us c o m p e t i t i on w h i ch the m o n o p o ly c o n f e r r ed was intended to p r e v e n t. T h is a c t i on of first R e s p o n d e nt as a l r e a dy stated w as ultra v i r e s. The third p o i nt that w as e x t e n s i v e ly a r g u ed w as that the p o w e rs of a p p l i c a nt in t e r ms of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng (Egg T r a d i n g) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1973 have since the p u b l i c a t i on of the Agricultural Marketing (Egg Trading ( A m e n d m e n t) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1993 been removed from the A p p l i c a n t. T h e se p o w e rs according to Counsel for R e s p o n d e n ts were now given to District Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es b e c a u se the name L e s o t ho Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es had been deleted and in its place District Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es had been s u b s t i t u t e d. This was a c c o r d i ng to R e s p o n d e n t s' counsel what the Egg Trading ( A m e n d m e n t) R e g u l a t i o ns had in fact d o n e. The q u e s t i on for d e t e r m i n a t i on was whether or not the a p p l i c a nt ought to be still buying eggs from p r o d u c e rs and d i s t r i b u t i ng them to licensed d e a l e rs Mr Sello for a p p l i c a nt referred me to C I V / A P N / 2 2 1 / 93 to back up the argument that a p p l i c a nt and District Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es are one and the same t h i n g. M r. Mohapi for R e s p o n d e n ts consented that I should refer to this a p p l i c a t i on provided I also referred to and used the facts in C I V / A P N / 2 5 6 / 9 3. To this M r. Sello for A p p l i c a nt had no o b j e c t i on I have referred to C I V / A P N / 2 2 1 / 93 and found identical extracts of M i n u t es of the Leribe Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve Society Ltd, Berea Poultry C o- o p e r a t i ve Society Ltd, M a f e t e ng Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve Society Ltd, Mohale's Hoek Co-operative Society Ltd end Quthing Co-operative Society Ltd, marked "C", "D", "E", "F" and "G" respectively. They are all dated 19th May, 1993. They are all to this effect, RESOLVED Society "1. To clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, the Lesotho Poultry Co- operative Union Ltd is a body composed of the above mentioned together Co-operative with other Poultry Co-operative Societies in Lesotho and that as each member Co-operative Society is represented on the Committee of Lesotho Poultry Co-operative Union Ltd , we regard and have always regarded the Executive Committee of the Lesotho Poultry Co-operative Union Ltd as having the authority to protect the interests members societies including instituting legal proceedings if it found it necessary to do so. its of In so far as this perception may be wrong in law, we hereby adopt the proceedings instituted by the said Lesotho Co-operative Union Ltd and referred to as our CIV/APN/221/93 proceedings and confirm that the Lesotho Co-operative Union is acting on our behalf therein or, in so far as this may be necessary, we hereby authorise the said proceedings on our behalf. as being Poultry I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE EXTRACT Sgd. These extracts of M i n u t es all describe a p p l i c a nt as a Union when in fact applicant is a Society In paragraph of the First R e s p o n d e n t 's Answering Affidavit in this a p p l i c a t i o n, the respondents say of applicant* "Lesotho Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve Society being the mother body is supposed to do general m a n a g e m e nt and oversee District S o c i e t i e s. Hence Lesotho Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve Society is not supposed to sell and buy e g g s. According to the Opposing A f f i d a v it of First Respondent sworn to by "Mabaitse Motsamai in C I V / A P N / 2 5 6 / 93 around July 1973 at paragraph 1 4. "As far back as July 1985 the Lesotho Poultry Co-operative Society made a decision that the selling of eggs to consumers be done by District Poultry C o - o p e r a t i v es so that the mother body p e r f o r ms functions relating to major activities such as c o- poultry o r d i n a t i on p r o d u c t i o n. In that respect a written report by the Lesotho Poultry C o - o p e r a t i ve was given by one Monne M a j a l le to the M i n i s t r y ." improvement and of According to First R e s p o n d e n t s' A f f i d a v it in C I V / A P N / 2 5 6 / 93 at paragraph 13 "pursuant to Lenal Notice Number 7 of 1 9 7 3. the Maseru Egg Circle was d i r e c t ly m a n a g ed by the 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 i m i t ed w h e r e as in the d i s t r i c t s, the m a n a g e m e nt c o n t i n u ed to be in the h a n ds of the c o n s t i t u e nt m e m b e rs being the D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o- o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es A c u te p r o b l e ms a r o se in r e l a t i on to the M a s e ru Egg C i r c le m a n a g ed by the said L e s o t ho C o - o p e r a t i v e ". A p p l i c a nt and its c o n s t i t u e n t s, the D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i v es are b o d i es c o - o p e r a t i v e. T he M a r k e t i ng O f f i c er (First R e s p o n d e n t) c a n n ot and is not e m p o w e r ed to i n t e r f e re in the P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i v es d o m e s t ic a f f a i rs and fight t h e ir internal a f f a i rs for them It s e e ms to the court it is not F i r st R e s p o n d e nt w ho should be f i g h t i ng the internal b a t t l es of a p p l i c a nt and its c o n s t i t u e n ts C o n s e q u e n t ly s i n ce a p p l i c a nt c o n t i n u es to m a n a ge the M a s e ru D i s t r i ct C o- o p e r a t i v e, A p p l i c a nt should buy e g gs from p r o d u c e rs and m a r k et t h e se eggs from the M a s e ru Egg C i r c le If t h is is a g a i n st t he i n t e r e s ts of the M a s e ru D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i ve that body will take a c t i o n. The c o u rt also w e nt t h r o u gh the F i r st R e s p o n d e n ts a f f i d a v i ts in C I V / A P N / 2 5 6 / 93 It found a l l e g a t i o ns of lack of t r a i n i n g, i n c o m p e t e n c e, i n e f f i c i e n cy that cause s e r i o us m a n a g e m e nt p r o b l e m s. N u m e r o us p r o b l e ms such as lack of u n i f o r m i ty in p r i c es w e re a l l e g ed R i g h t ly or w r o n g ly a c q u i r i ng and m a r k e t i ng e g gs t h r o u gh D i s t r i ct Egg C o - o p e r a t i v es w as e x p e c t ed to be an i m p r o v e m e nt A p p l i c a nt had a u t h o r i s ed t h is s i n ce 1 9 8 5. In the c o u r ts v i e w, the M i n i s t er h as b e en g i v en e x t e n s i ve p o w e rs of rapid r e s p o n se i n c l u d i ng t h o se of r e g u l a t i on m a k i ng I see no r e a s on why t h is c o u rt can ignore the e x i s t i ng law and a l l ow p u b l ic s e r v a n ts to u n d e r m i ne it by d o i ng as they see fit The O p p o s i ng A f f i d a v it of ' M a b a i t se M o t s a m a i, the Chief M a r k e t i ng O f f i c er in C I V / A P N / 2 5 6 / 93 at p a r a g r a ph 18 t h e r e of s t a t es t h at she is issuing l i c e n c es to a c q u i re e g gs from p r o d u c e rs and m a r k et them t h r o u gh licensed d e a l e rs is not done with the M i n i s t e r 's p e r m i s s i o n. N e v e r t h e l e ss if the M i n i s t er had b e en i n f o r m ed of the a b o v e - m e n t i o n ed p r o b l e ms and c h o s en to a c t, the m i n i s t er w o u ld not have b e en w i t h o ut a d m i n i s t r a t i v e, legal and l e g i s l a t i ve r e m e d i e s. It s h o u ld be noted t h at I am not s e i s ed with a p p l i c a t i o ns C I V / A P N / 2 2 1 / 93 and C I V / A P N / 2 5 6 / 9 3. B u t, as t h e se a p p l i c a t i o ns have a l r e a dy b e en d e c i d ed by c o n s e n t, and are b e i ng r e f e r r ed to by c o n s e nt of the p a r t i e s, I am really looking at them for i n f o r m a t i on o n l y. F a c ts and the law have Ted me to the c o n c l u s i on that w h at w as a g r e ed by the p a r t i es w as the only c o n c l u s i on they could h a ve r e a c h ed if p r o p e r ly a d v i s ed If they had b e en d e c i d ed d i f f e r e n t ly and I was called upon to d e c i de the legal i s s u es as I see f i t, I w o u ld had to g r a p p le with issue e s t o p p el or res j u d i c a t a. In view of w h at I have said a b o ve I do not have to do so In r e s i s t i ng the D e c e m b e r, 1993 a p p l i c a t i on of a p p l i c a nt to import e g gs from S o u th A f r i c a, the Chief M a r k e t i ng O f f i c er has put her p o s i t i on s u c c i n c t ly in the letter of 1st D e c e m b e r, 1 9 93 to a p p l i c a n t: Dear S i r, re : A p p l i c a t i on for p e r m it to import e g g s, your that t h is c o m m u n i c a t i on are By a p p l i c a t i on informed 1 5 00 i m p o r t a t i on the for d o z e ns of e g gs d a t ed 1.12 93 has The r e a s on not b e en a c c e p t e d. b e i ng still are e g gs t h at a v a i l a b le in the M a s e ru d i s t r i c t. of you H o w e v e r, you have cash can our from a s s i s t a n ce o f f i ce as to w h e re you can get e g gs get Y o u rs f a i t h f u l l y, M. M o t s a m ai C h i ef M a r k e t i ng O f f i c er If R e g u l a t i on 4 of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng (Egg T r a d i ng R e g u l a t i o ns of 1 9 73 w as b e i ng f o l l o w ed as it o u g ht to b e, t h en t h e re could be no e g gs for sale from p r o d u c e rs t h at c o u ld be sold to any one b ut A p p l i c a nt or D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es w ho are by c o m m on c o n s e nt a p p l i c a n t 's c o n s t i t u e nt m e m b e rs If t h e re w e re e g gs in the c o u n t ry w h i ch w e re b e i ng sold to any o ne but the a p p l i c a nt and a p p l i c a n t 's c o n s t i t u e nt b o d i es t h en a c r i m i n al o f f e n ce w as b e i ng c o m m i t t e d. The p e o p le c o m m i t t i ng t h is o f f e n ce w e re l i a b le to a fine not e x c e e d i ng M 2 0 0 . 00 or to b o th f i ne and six m o n t hs i m p r i s o n m e n t, on a s e c o nd or s u b s e q u e nt c o n v i c t i on t h ey w e re l i a b le to a f i ne n ot e x c e e d i ng t wo t h o u s a nd M a l u ti or i m p r i s o n m e nt for a p e r i od n ot e x c e e d i ng two y e a r s, or to both such f i ne and such i m p r i s o n m e nt See R e g u l a t i on 6 of the said Egg T r a d i ng R e g u l a t i o ns of 1 9 7 3. W h at is d i s t u r b i ng is t h at in a d d i ng t h is b r e a ch of the l a w, the M a r k e t i ng O f f i c er ( F i r st R e s p o n d e n t) w as c o n f i d e nt he was u p h o l d i ng t he law in d i v e r t i ng e g gs from a p p l i c a nt by i s s u i ng p e r m i ts to o t h er p e o p le or b o d i e s. T h e re s h o u ld be some p r o d u c e rs w ho o b e y ed the law and w ho sold e g gs to D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i v es S o c i e t i es and to a p p l i c a nt as m a n a g er of the M a s e ru Egg C i r c le on behalf of the M a s e ru D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t y. S i m i l a r l y, t h e re should be i n s t i t u t i o ns and licensed t r a d e rs who a c q u i r ed eggs for c o n s u m p t i o n, r e - s a le or other p u r p o s es from a p p l i c a nt or D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i v es A p p l i c a nt and the D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i v es w e re o b l i g ed to buy their eggs or to sell their e g gs in t e r ms of R e g u l a t i o ns 3 and 4 of the Egg T r a d i ng R e g u l a t i o ns of 1 9 73 as a m e n d ed bv the 1 9 93 Egg T r a d i ng R e g u l a t i o ns W h en their supply of eggs is e x h a u s t e d, a p p l i c a nt and D i s t r i ct C o - o p e r a t i v es are o b l i g ed to import them It f o l l o ws t h at if such a s i t u a t i on a r i s e s, F i r st R e s p o n d e nt is o b l i g ed to f a c i l i t a te the a c q u i s i t i on of e g gs from o u t s i de L e s o t ho by issuing the r e q u i r ed egg p e r m i t s, W h at s t r i k es the c o u rt as m o st d i s t u r b i ng is that a civil s e r v a nt of the rank of F i r st R e s p o n d e nt s h o u ld be able to f r u s t r a te n a t i o n al policy as e m b o d i ed by in the L a ws and R e g u l a t i o ns of this c o u n t r y. It seems to this c o u rt that F i r st R e s p o n d e nt is w r o ng in s a y i ng that w h at is in issue here is that a p p l i c a nt should not be d i r e c t ly involved in the e g gs m o n o p o ly but should only m a n a ge and s u p e r v i se D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o- operative Societies It seems there was a scheme to break the statutory monopoly of Poultry Co-operatives to acquire eggs from producers and to market them. The 1993 Egg Trading amendment is only being used as an excuse. The reason for this conclusion is that in CIV/APN/256/93 the applicants were The Berea and Butha-Buthe Poultry C o - o p e r a t i v e s. In paragraph 10 of Ramaisa founding affidavit in CIV/APN/256/93 says the present applicant and other District Poultry Co- operatives "applied, at different times to First Respondent for permits to import eggs ... ," In reply thereto First Respondent represented by the 'Mabaitse Motsamai said; "I admit the first s e n t e n c e, I further admit that applications were turned down, but I vehemently deny it was advanced as a reason that applicants would supply Lesotho Co- The applicants were denied for o p e r a t i v e. good and valid reasons given. Sometime in May 1993, the applicants had a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and it was at this meeting publicly declared they were over-supplied with eggs " The Minister gets information from public servants such as First Respondent. It would put the Minister in a difficult position as the final appellate body in terms of Regulation 4(4) of the Agricultural Marketing (Egg Control) Regulations of 1969 to have pre-judged the m a t t e r. This o u g ht not to h a p p e n. If e g gs were many in the country and they w e re not g e t t i ng to D i s t r i ct P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i v e s, it was b e c a u se F i r st R e s p o n d e nt a c t i v i t i es in issuing p e r m i ts was f r u s t r a t i ng national p o l i cy by the issuing p e r m i ts to other p e o p le to b u r st the m o n o p o ly of the P o u l t ry C o- o p e r a t i v es over e g g s. What First R e s p o n d e nt says in the p r e s e nt a p p l i c a t i on is the o p p o s i te see p a r a g r a p hs 5 and 7 of her A n s w e r i ng A f f i d a v i t, w h e re First R e s p o n d e nt now says G o v e r n m e nt p o l i cy Is that of free c o m p e t i t i on and it was b e c a u se of this p o l i cy that eggs no m o re get to a p p l i c a nt from s u p p l i e r s. There is the case of N,S M a s e r i b a ne and O t h e rs v J. R. L K o t s o k o a ne 1978 LLR 451 in which the court of Appeal of L e s o t ho was d e a l i ng with m i n i s t e r i al power The facts of this case are not very d i f f e r e nt from this c a s e. In M a s e r i b a ne v K o t s o k o a ne the m a r k e t i ng of livestock and livestock p r o d u c ts was c o n t r o l l ed by a L i v e s t o ck M a r k e t i ng C o r p o r a t i on w h o se Board is a p p o i n t ed by the M i n i s t er of A g r i c u l t u re In this case Egg T r a d i ng is c o n t r o l l ed by P o u l t ry C o- o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es which should be c o m p o s ed by the egg p r o d u c e rs t h e m s e l v e s. Egg T r a d i ng w as h a n d e d to P o u l t ry C o - o p e r a t i ve S o c i e t i es by the M i n i s t er t h r o u gh 1973 R e g u l a t i o ns m a de t h r o u gh s u b s i d i a ry l e g i s l a t i ve p o w e r s. The L i v e s t o ck M a r k e t i ng C o r p o r a t i on w as e s t a b l i s h ed and run by a Board by s t a t u te in t e r ms of the L i v e s t o ck M a r k e t i ng C o r p o r a t i on Act of 1973 The c o u r ts in M a s e r i b a ne v K o t s o k o a ne w o u ld not a l l ow the M i n i s t er to d i s m i ss the Board he had a p p o i n t ed w i t h o ut a h e a r i n g. In this case the right to a h e a r i ng w h en a c t i o ns p r e j u d i c i al to the e c o n o m ic i n t e r e s ts of the a p p l i c a nt is even g r e a t e r. The c o u r t 's f u n c t i o ns are to apply the law in an e v e n - h a n d ed w a y. P a r l i a m e nt m a k es the laws end it is P a r l i a m e nt w h i ch t h r o u gh the laws has g i v en the M i n i s t er p o w e rs and by the same p r o c e ss s o m e t i m e s p r o t e c ts the i n d i v i d u a l. N e v e r t h e l e s s, t h e re are c e r t a in legal p r i n c i p l es p r o t e c t i ng the i n d i v i d u al w h i ch are read into ell laws u n l e ss e x p r e s s ly e x c l u d ed by the l e g i s l a t u re C o u r ts i m m e d i a t e ly insist on a right to a h e a r i ng w h e re r i g h ts of p r o p e r ty are i n v o l v e d. In saying t h i s, I am f o r t i f i ed by what O g i l v ie T h o m p s on J. A in N . S. M a s e r i b a ne v J. R. L K o t s o k o a ne 1 9 78 LLR 451 at page 455 to 456 d e a l i ng w i th a d m i n i s t r a t i ve d e c i s i o ns that a f f e ct the r i g h ts of o t h e rs s a i d :- keep a w a t c h f ul eye to see that in t e r ms of S e c t i on 3 ( a) and (d) of the A g r i c u l t u r al M a r k e t i ng A c t. 1 9 67 t h a t: p r o d u c er "Each w h i ch a d e q u a t e ly reflect the value and q u a l i ty of his p r o d u ct in L e s o t ho and on e x t e r n al m a r k e t s ." - S e c t i on 3 ( a) p r i c es paid is M i n i s t e rs in the past have also failed : "to o b t a in a d e q u a te i n f o r m a t i on to a s s e ss .... the a c t i v i t i es r e l a t i ng to p r o d u c t i on and m a r k e t i ng of p r o d u c ts and s u p p l i e s" in r e l a t i on to eggs - S e c t i on 3 ( d) If the M i n i s t er does his duty in r e l a t i on to egg p r o d u c t i on and m a r k e t i ng t h en the e x i s t i ng p r o b l e ms in r e l a t i on to eggs will r e c e i ve a t t e n t i o n. S u s p e ct a l l e g a t i o ns will not be made by F i r st R e s p o n d e nt and First R e s p o n d e nt will not c h a n ge the p o l i cy in egg t r a d i ng that is e m b o d i ed in the law and r e g u l a t i o ns as he sees f i t. That is s o m e t h i ng that is b e y o nd his p o w e r s. E v en the M i n i s t er cannot change the policy e m b o d i ed in r e g u l a t i o ns e x c e pt t h r o u gh other r e g u l a t i o n s, What r e m a i ns for the court to do is to make an a p p r o p r i a te o r d er The court has its own f u n c t i on and its own area where it is by Taw expected to exercise discretion The court is not supposed or expected to take responsibility for the import and export of e g g s. The legislature has provided for that. S i m i l a r l y, the court is not expected to acquire eggs from producers and market them for the egg producers This matter together with the protection of the domestic egg market are the concern of the M i n i s t e r, Even if the Taw permitted the court to shoulder these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i es (which it does n o t) the court would be most reluctant to do so These are functions of g o v e r n m e n t. The court's function is not to g o v e r n, make policy or imprement it a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ly or through l e g i s l a t i o n. In this particular case, Parliament has armed the Minister with extensive powers inclduing those of subsidiary legislation The Court had an opportunity to examine the permit market " M M 2" attached to First R e s p o n d e n t 's affidavit in this a p p l i c a t i o n. The court is puzzled that it does not conform with Regulation 5 of the Agricultural Marketing (Egg C o n t r o l) R e g u l a t i o ns of 1969 in that it is not on the face of it:- "issued to the applicant authorising the South importation through eggs the of African officially Egg Control recognised Board marketing or other channel That permit authorises that eggs should be obtained only from Range Poultry Farm, The Court does not have the full facts but it seems odd in the light of Regulation 5 a b o v e, for both the application from Berea Poultry Co-operative Society marked " M M 1" and the permit " M M 2" to make no reference to the South African Egg Control Board If circumstances have changed, it seems to me that regulations should be changed accordingly The court w i l l, t h e r e f o r e, not plunge headlong into this chaotic area. I am not happy with the orders that applicant seeks. They are phrased in terms that are too broad. At places they are difficult to understand N e v e r t h e l e s s, the court has a duty to resolve this dispute and to see to it that existing laws are followed. That being the case (to put the derailed process back on track) the circumstances of the case call for an order in the following t e r m s .- (a) The interim orders in terms of which applicant was authorised to import 20000 (twenty eggs on the 18th October 1993 and on the 22nd December, 1993 are confirmed. thousand) (b) Prayer (b) of the Rule Nisi (in so far as it means permits should always refused according to law) is confirmed, be granted or (c) First Respondent of issuing marketing to other is restrained from bodies permits for acquisition of eggs in and competition Co- operative (which include applicant) contrary to the provisions of Regulations 3 Agricultural the and M a r k e t i ng T r a d i n g) ( E gg Regulations of 1973 (as amended) with Societies egg Poultry of are the with directed to (d) Respondents Agricultural conform Marketing the regulations made thereunder and the procedures for modifying or changing Regulations provided for in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1967. 1 9 6 7. said the Act of (e) The Respondents are directed to pay the costs of this application jointly or severally W . C . M. M A Q U TU A C T I NG J U D G E, 10th January, 1994. For Applicant For Respondent : Mr. Sello Mr. Mohapi