Segopolo gave Moitshepi little room to manoeuvre on Tuesday before delivering his judgement, which saw Ratlhaga lose the case with costs. Ratlhaga had sought the High Court’s intervention in a bid to remove the Botswana Football League chairperson, Nicholas Zakhem. But Segopolo pointed out that Moitshepi had failed to convince the court that there would be harm to his client if the “court did not grant the relief”. Moitshepi wanted the court to grant an interdict and hear the case on an urgent basis. But from the first minute, Segopolo set the tone and gave Moitshepi very little legroom.
Below are some of the highlights from the exchange between Segopolo and Moitshepi.
Segopolo: What is the imminent harm to your client, the serious or irreparable harm that your client will suffer if they don’t get the relief that you seek?
Moitshepi: The applicant’s tenure in office will have elapsed. Fifth (Zakhem) and eighth (Jagdish Shah) respondents will retain office and the whole issue will be academic. There is a need to restrain the office until the application is heard.
Segopolo: So it means you must paralyse the organisation? You mean if the court does not intervene now, your client will be robbed of time in office. You are supposed to show me the imminence of severe harm if the court doesn’t grant the interdict. You are not putting that across. You should show me the harm if the court doesn’t intervene. What’s the imminent harm that he stands to suffer? If you are unable to show me the harm, then the train will not leave. We will get to others (issues), but let’s start here.
Moitshepi: The problem My Lord is that you are not giving me time to explain, and you can’t keep asking questions.
Segopolo: No, I want to be fair to yourself and be fair to your client.
Moitshepi: With the greatest of respect, I think My Lord does not appreciate some of the issues before him. My client was appointed by the resolution of the sixth respondent (BFL).
Segopolo: The statement that you are making is worrisome because he (your client) is not standing for election. Why does he want to be in the office for just another month? How long have you been on your feet failing to answer (the question of harm)?
Moitshepi: I have not failed to answer...
Segopolo: Let us make this clear, you don’t spring to the mouth of the court. I try to drag you back, but you keep saying I am silencing you. There should be order in the manner we address each other in court. Tell me, what harm will be there if the court does not grant interim relief?
Moitshepi: I don’t know how to put my case as I am not afforded the opportunity to present may case.
Segopolo: It is because you are pulling me all over the place. You are saying nothing. ‘Irreparable harm’ appears to be the magical words that have to be said.
Moitshepi: I have a right to present my case but you are not allowing me to do that.
Segopolo: You must assist the court, but you are refusing to assist the court.
Moitshepi: It appears to me that Your Lordship does not fully apprehend the issues placed before you.
Segopolo: The court is not here to be patronised. This is what we call a red herring. My finding is that there is no urgency... none at all. An issue like this could have been discussed at the (BFA) Tribunal. The issue of jurisdiction doesn’t have a leg. Your client should have taken this to the Tribunal. It is the one that should hear his case. It can be upheld or dismissed and then after that you can bring it here (High Court).
