According to documents seen by this publication, attorneys Kago Mokotedi and Joram Matomela legal bills thus far stand at over P300,000. As if that is not enough, through a notice of demand for security of costs, the BPF, its national executive committee (NEC) and Mephato Reatile, the current party helmsman has filed with courts a claim of P200,000 as security of costs against Butale.
According to the Administration of Justice website, in principle, security for costs is not intended to be full indemnity for the respondent in case the appellant is not successful in the appeal.
It is always a nominal amount agreed upon by the parties. In the event the parties do not agree, the Registrar takes a decision on the matter. Papers prepared by Mokotedi of Otto Itumeleng Law Chambers, state that between the months of June and August 2023, Butale has thus far instituted and lost with costs several cases as against the respondents and others not cited in these proceedings as follows: Two applications before Justice Zein Kebonang in Case No: UAHGB-000199/23.
In this matter, the applicant's interlocutory proceedings and the merits were dismissed with an order of costs, on attorney and own client scale; An urgent application before Justice Itumeleng Segopolo under Case No. UAHGB-000220/23 was struck off with an order of costs; An urgent stay application before Justice Boipuso Makhwe under Case Number: MAGHGB 000614/ 23 and same was dismissed with an order of costs; and. The applicant noted an appeal against the judgement of Justice Zein Kebonang and same was withdrawn and abandoned on August 23, 2023 and tendered wasted costs for the abandonment of the Appeal.
The Appeal was registered under Case Number: CACGB-000165/23. According to Mokotedi, all these cases arise from similar facts and/or complaints. “The applicant is already indebted to the respondents in legal costs which will run over the sum of P300,000 in relation to the above cited matters which the Applicant lost, with two applications being dismissed on attorney and own client scale.
A request for settlement of costs has been ignored by the Applicant, compelling the respondents to spend more resources in preparation of voluminous Bill of Costs, a step which increases legal costs,” Mokotedi stated. He further stated that despite advice from the respondents, Butale continues to ignore the cost-free domestic remedies available to him under the BPF constitution and continues to wantonly put the respondents out of pocket. “In all these matters, the respondents have been represented by two counsel and their cumulative legal costs are high. This is a proper case where the applicant must pay security for costs for the review matter to proceed any further.
The applicant is therefore bound to pay security for costs. Without security for costs, the respondents will make an application for an order for security for costs and that review proceedings be stayed until security for costs is paid,” they wrote. In the latest of the court battles, Butale was unsuccessful before Justice Makhwe in a case in which he wanted a rule nisi issued returnable as soon as the matter may be heard, calling upon the respondents to appear and show cause why an order should not be made in the following terms: "The Applicant be and is hereby granted a stay of execution and implementation of the decisions of the BPF and its NEC purportedly made and/or recommended by the Disciplinary Committee of the party on July 4, 2023 and July 13, 2023 respectively, to suspend and expel him as a member of the respondent and/or as the party president, pending the final end and determination of the review application filed simultaneously herewith to set aside the suspension and expulsion of the applicant before the court," reads his court papers.
Furthermore, the papers say:
"The respondents are interdicted from taking any steps to organise an election or to appoint and/or approve any other person or candidate as party president other than the applicant; alternatively if any such appointment is already extant, then such appointee be and is hereby interdicted from discharging the functions of the office of president of the BPF and/or otherwise hold himself out to be president of the BPF''.
He also wanted a rule nisi issued returnable calling upon the respondents to appear and show cause why an order should not be made directing and ordering the BPF, its NEC and its disciplinary committee to despatch and deliver the complete and full record of the proceedings to the Registrar and to the applicant's attorneys of and/or in relation to and/or in connection with the decisions to suspend and expel the applicant as member and/or as the party president of the BPF within seven days hereof. He was, however, unsuccessful and now awaits a court date for the review application.
