Moorosi Tsiane
THE leadership wrangle within Father Masango’s St John Apostolic Faith Mission is now set for judicial review.
The High Court is expected to decide on the legitimacy of Lady Bishop Mahlompho Tšenoli’s elevation to the helm of the church.
Bishop David Lebese Mpatsi approached the High Court early last year seeking her removal, arguing that her January 2025 elevation to church leader was unlawful.
Through his lawyer, Advocate Silas Ratau, Bishop Mpatsi accuses the church leadership of creating a non-existent position to elevate Ms Tšenoli—daughter of the late church founders, Arch-Bishop Thabang Paulus Matsoso and Lady Archbishop Beatrice ‘Malimakatso’ Matsoso—during the church’s Annual General Meeting held from 15 to 18 January 2025.
Ms Tšenoli was formally announced as church leader during the closing ceremony of the assembly on 18 January 2025 at Lekokoaneng in Berea.
However, Adv Ratau argued before Justice Fumane Khabo in the High Court in Maseru this week that the church leadership acted ultra vires (beyond its powers), saying the constitution does not provide for the position of a church leader. He urged the court to review and set aside the appointment.
Father Masango’s St John Apostolic Faith Mission, the Bishops’ Council, Ms Tšenoli, the Executive Church Council, Secretary General, Treasurer General, Diocesan Conferences, Diocesan Boards, District Conferences, District Boards, Circuits, Circuit Boards, Retired Ministers, and representatives of the church band are cited as the first to the 14th respondents respectively.
Adv Ratau maintained that Ms Tšenoli’s appointment was irregular, unprocedural and a violation of the church’s constitution.
“At the heart of this application is whether the third respondent was lawfully appointed as leader of the church in terms of the constitution. Her appointment was made on 18 January 2025 during the AGM,” Adv Ratau argued.
He added that a church, as a voluntary association, is bound by its constitution, which serves as a contract between it and its members.
“A voluntary association must act in accordance with its own constitution, and any member who believes it has been violated has the right to approach the court for relief,” he said.
Adv Ratau further submitted that the church’s structures are clearly defined in Clauses 10 and 11 of its constitution.
He said Clause 10 outlines office bearers in order of seniority, placing Bishops at the top, followed by Ministers, the Secretary General, Treasurer General, Executive Secretary and Presiding Elders, with no provision for a head or overall leader of the church.
Clause 11, he added, sets out the hierarchy of structures from the General Assembly down to diocesan, district and circuit levels, without mentioning any position of church leader.
“These are the only provisions outlining offices or structures. There is no provision for a person called the head or leader of the church,” he argued, insisting the decision should be set aside as illegal.
He also dismissed claims that Ms Tšenoli’s lineage entitles her to leadership.
“The leadership of the church is a collective body of Bishops. The fact that she is the daughter of the founders does not confer any special rights over established structures. Her appointment is irregular,” he said.
In response, Adv Fusi Sehapi mounted a strong defence, arguing that Clause 15 of the constitution empowers the Bishops’ Council to make such decisions.
He said the Council, composed of all Bishops as spiritual leaders, has oversight authority and may elect individuals into positions within its structure.
“This clause allows the Bishops’ Council to elect someone to chair the Council. With 66 Bishops, it is impractical for all to lead simultaneously. Clause 15 gives the Council authority to appoint a leader where necessary,” Adv Sehapi argued.
He maintained that Ms Tšenoli was not appointed as Arch-Bishop, but as leader of the church, a position he said was lawfully created.
He further argued that the key issue was whether it was necessary for the church to create such a role, insisting the constitution allows for flexibility where needed.
“The Bishops’ Council has the authority to create a position if circumstances require. Its decisions cannot be easily challenged,” he said.
He also raised a preliminary point, arguing that the applicants lack locus standi (legal authority) to bring the matter before court, as they were allegedly expelled from the church.
“They should have first challenged their expulsion. As it stands, they are no longer members and cannot sue on behalf of the church,” he argued.
Adv Sehapi added that without legal standing, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Khabo reserved judgment to an unspecified date.
