However, its name somewhat loomed large over the urgent application that was launched by Mmapula Amos, Boatametse Nthobogang and Rajaba Lekgaba respectively. The respondents in the matter were: the secretary-general (SG) of the BPF, Lawrence Ookeditse, the president of the BPF, Mephato Reatile, and the BPF in that order. The applicants brought the urgent application before Justice Bengbame Sechele seeking reliefs in the following terms: declaring the application to be urgent and setting aside all rules of this court relating to form; service of process and other related matter; declaring the first respondent (Ookeditse)’s unlawful decision to remove the third respondent (BPF) from the membership of the UDC to constitute an unlawful violation of the BPF’s constitution and consequently null and void; directing Ookeditse to submit or cause to be submitted names of all the candidates for local government and parliamentary elections that will represent the BPF in the UDC in the 2024 General Election forthwith and directing the respondents to pay the costs of the application. When delivering ruling in the matter, Justice Sechele said: “The application is opposed on points of limine and on the merits. In limine, the Respondents argued that the applicants have failed to satisfy the requirements of Order 12 (12) of the High Court and consequently sought an order striking out the application with costs.
In further amplification of this point, the respondents highlighted the fact that the applicants became aware of the Reatile’s decision as far back as April 7, 2024 but lay supine until August 8, 2024 when they launched these proceedings on an urgent basis.” The respondents, Sechele noted, took further points in limine against the applicants’ replying affidavit and its accompaniments on the grounds that the Commissioner of Oaths who administered failed to observe the solemnity of the task she was being called upon to perform. “In this regard, the Respondents highlighted the commissioner’s bizarre act of commissioning a set of affidavits, including confirmatory affidavits, at the same time and at different places located hundreds of kilometres apart. The other point relates to a failure to satisfy the requirements of a final interdict, the non-joiner of the UDC, applicants’ reliance on actio popularis (right resident in any member of a community to take legal action in vindication of a public interest) and the requirements of Order 13 (16) of the Rules of the High Court concerning annexures. Counsel for the respondents (Kago Mokotedi) submitted that urgency ought to be borne of facts which from an objective assessment of facts, render a matter urgent.
