23 Jun 2019

Ghanzi senior magistrate Mr Thapelo Buang has ordered the objector to pay P300 to each of the 30 potential voters, in a case in which one Bojelo David had dragged Juliah Thumpe and hundred others before court on objection of voter registration claims.

This was after David withdrew their names recently.

The magistrate acted as per section 19, sub-section 7 of the Electoral Act, which reads thus; “If in addition the magistrate is of the opinion that the objection was made without reasonable cause, he may order the objector to pay to the person to whom the objection relates such sum not exceeding P500 as he considers will compensate the person to whom the objection relates for the trouble and expense to which he may have been put by reasons of the objection.”

In the same case, Magistrate Buang awarded cost in punitive scale in favour of respondents after Attorney Thabo Malambane, representing some respondents, made an application to be awarded cost in punitive scale if the matter is postponed. These are the respondents whose names were not initially withdrawn.

However, the magistrate referred his ruling to the registrar of high court to place it before high court to make a determination on whether the matter warrants the punitive costs.

He observed that section 16 of the Electoral Act only stipulated that the objector could be ordered to pay a sum not exceeding P500 if the objection was made without reasonable cause, but was silent on legal costs.

Attorney Malambane had argued that the applicant was playing dirty litigation tactics so that the case could be postponed.

“This is an urgent matter though not brought through certificate of urgency, Form D alone deals with urgency,” he added.

Mr Malambane, who castigated the applicant that ‘elections are won at the polls not in the courts’, advanced that his clients spent time and resources to defend their constitutional right.

Gobiditswemang Mokganedi who represented herself also concurred with Mr Malambane that they deserved punitive damages, saying she had lost business because she spent the whole day in court without any progress, “I could have made some profits at my tuck-shop.”

At the beginning of the case, Attorney Malambane successfully challenged the legitimacy of Luanda Antonio from Antonio and partners legal practitioners in representing the applicant on the grounds that he did not file the power of attorney and the court had to adjourn for the applicant’s lawyer to file power of attorney.

After adjournment Attorney Antonio claimed that he failed to file power of attorney because he could not to print it.

He said he had no choice, but to vacate his seat and allow his client to represent himself.

Consequently, the applicant took over and he pleaded with the court to postpone the case to give him the opportunity to study points of law served by the respondents’ lawyer, arguing that they were served late and had no time to study them.

The next hearing will be on July 3.

This conundrum involves two UDC members, David, an applicant in this case and one respondent John Motsumi, who are both claiming the legitimate council candidacy of Meriting ward in Ghanzi.

The duo defected from BMD but prior their defection to UDC, they both stood for council primary election for the same ward and Motsumi was declared the winner. Ends