Member of Parliament for Mokhotlong Constituency, Mr. Lehlohonolo Tšehlana, has filed an application in the Appeal court against a High Court judgment which confirmed his dismissal from the Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD).

Mr. Tšehlana has asked the Appeal Court to find that the Lesotho High Court erred and misdirected itself in turning down an application made in advance by Mr. Ts'ehlana to lead oral evidence on certain issues, on which the court eventually made definitive adverse findings against him.

He also asked the higher body to find that the court erred and misdirected itself by not furnishing reasons for its decisions to turn down his application for oral evidence on specific issues where such application was an integral part of the proceedings.

The high court also held that Mr. Ts'ehlana was properly expelled by the LCD National Executive Committee from the membership of LCD when there was no evidence whatsoever that the appellant appeared before the executive committee, a repository of power, in order to make representations on his own behalf before the adverse decision could be arrived at by the national committee.

The member of Parliament for Mokhotlong also contends that the high court erred and misdirected itself to hold directly or impliedly that a hearing before the LCD disciplinary committee, which made recommendations to the executive committee, constituted a hearing before the executive committee.

'The court erred and misdirected itself to hold that a hearing before the special committee of the annual general conference of the party was automatically a hearing before the said full conference,' state papers filed in court.

The appeal says the high court failed to draw a clear distinction between the special committee of the conference whose job was to make recommendations to the conference and the said conference which was the ultimate final repository of powers to take an adverse decision against the appellant.

The decision of the high court is based on conclusions which no reasonable court could have arrived at, says Mr. Tšehlana.

04 July 2005