Court strikes out Kelepi vs BPP application
Lebogang Mosikare | Monday May 20, 2024 06:01
Last week Friday, Kelepi took his party to the High Court after it barred him from taking part in its primary elections for the Shashe Bridge/Tati Siding South ward in the Tati East constituency. The BPP had approved Botsang Bareki, Wame Ncube and Kaisara James to contest the primaries that were set for the following day (May 11, 2024).
But on the night of May 10, 2024, Kelepi filed an urgent court application before Justice Gaolapelwe Ketlogetswe to interdict the BPP from barring him from taking part in the primary election. Justice Ketlogetswe issued a ruli nisi (an order upon condition that is to become absolute unless cause is shown to the contrary) in favour of Kelepi stopping the primaries from taking place on Saturday. Reads the temporary order: “It is ordered that the BPP is interdicted from holding and/or continuing the primary elections scheduled for 11th May 2024 at Shashe Bridge/Tati-Siding South pending finalisation of this application.
The BPP is hereby ordered to include Kelepi in the list of nominated council candidates for Shashe Bridge/Tati-Siding South and he be allowed to stand for primary elections.” Despite Justice Ketlogetswe’s order, the BPP continued to hold its primary election at the exclusion of Kelepi but prematurely stopped the primaries and withheld the results after being advised of the consequences of defying a court order. When asked why the BPP continued with the primaries in defiance of the court order, the secretary-general (SG) of the BPP, Tiroeaone Ntsima said they stopped the primaries upon learning about Justice Ketlogetswe’s order adding that is the reason why they did not release the results.
On Wednesday this week, Kelepi was at (sixes and sevens) when the matter was finally brought before court for argument. Kelepi, a former Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) councillor for Tati Siding West, who was unrepresented in his urgent application, admitted that he did not file a replying affidavit in the joinder and contempt of court applications. At that point, Justice Ketlogetswe told Kelepi that the court does not advise litigants about how the rules of court operate after Kelepi begged for the court’s advise. Ketlogetswe then told Kelepi that he should have engaged an attorney to navigate the legal minefield that lay ahead but there was nothing wrong with (Kelepi) representing himself.
Ketlogetswe later asked Kelepi if he understood the implications of not filing the replying affidavits to which the latter replied in the affirmative. Kelepi then told the court that he was a member of the BPP in good standing who was denied the opportunity to contest the primary elections. But Justice Ketlogetswe told him that the BPP through its attorney, Tshekiso Tshekiso, had submitted that his founding affidavit was not properly commissioned. Justice Ketlogetswe said the situation meant that the affidavit was defective and was also akin to having no affidavit before court. “The respondents are saying that the affidavit that you filed before court was not properly commissioned and this means that this is the end of this matter. The respondents are saying that the affidavit that you filed before court does not show the rank of the person who signed it,” said Ketlogetswe. In response, Kelepi said he agreed with the respondents. In conclusion, Justice Ketlogetswe said: “If a proper affidavit has not been filed before court, this application has to be struck out. The order of this court therefore is that this application is struck out with costs.”