Manual Workers Union loses Motsamai case with costs
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Wednesday February 25, 2026 06:09
In its judgment delivered last Thursday, the court found that the union failed to establish a substantive legal right to challenge the decision, effectively clearing the way for the operationalisation of the council.
The Manual Workers Union had approached the court on an urgent basis, requesting an interim interdict to prevent Motsamai’s appointment pending a review of the matter. The union had taken the director of Public Service Management, Attorney General, Botswana Teachers Union, Botswana Public Employees Union, Botswana Sectors of Educators Trade Union, Botswana Land Board and Local Authorities and Health Workers Union, Botswana Nurses Union, and Botswana Doctors Union and Motsamai to court, arguing that their decision to appoint Motsamai was unlawful. The union argued that the appointment was irregular and sought to suspend its implementation until its concerns could be properly ventilated.
However, the court held that an interim interdict requires an applicant to demonstrate, among other elements, a clear or at least prima facie right that has been infringed or is under threat. In this case, the judge ruled that the applicant did not possess the necessary substantive right to challenge the appointment decision. Justice Reuben Lekorwe underscored that the union failed to show that it had a direct legal entitlement affected by the appointment or that it suffered prejudice warranting urgent relief.
'The issue of the cause of action arises in the context of the objection that the applicant is approbating and reprobating. If that is found to be the case, then the applicant would be precluded from enforcing any alleged right or from challenging the process that it accepts in one breath and rejects in another,' read the judgment in part. This, the judge said, was because the Manual Workers Union had accepted Motsamai's appointment, citing a flawed process, whilst on the other hand, it accepted Tobokani Rari's appointment as deputy secretary, who was also appointed under the same process.
Justice Lekorwe said there is no reason in law or in logic why the principle of acquiescence could not be applied in this scenario.
'It is not even the applicant's case that it intends to challenge Rari's appointment in the contemplated review. In my considered view, the conduct of the applicant casts serious doubts on whether it has a cause of action in due course,' Justice Lekorwe reasoned when dismissing the application.
'Put differently, it will be that it would be precluded from challenging the decision taken by the respondents. viewed in this way, whatever the substantive right may be, it would appear not to be open to some doubt as the test envisages, but in serious doubt,' he said.
Furthermore, Justice Lekorwe said the Manual Workers Union has no locus standi to seek to enforce the provisions of the council's constitution because it is not yet a member of the council.
The Judge agreed with the respondents' attorney, Kago Mokotedi's submission that an aspirant or prospective member of a voluntary association cannot enforce the provisions of its constitution.