as proposed settlement hits a brick wall
Moorosi Tsiane
THE bitter leadership battle between the National University of Lesotho (NUL) Council and its suspended Acting Vice-Chancellor, Professor Kananelo Mosito, has been pushed to April next year by the Court of Appeal after the parties failed to reach a settlement.
Prof Mosito, who is also President of the very same Court of Appeal, is challenging the NUL Council’s decision to initiate the recruitment of a new Vice-Chancellor before the expiry of Professor Olusola Isaac Fajana’s term of office.
He approached the High Court in April this year, seeking to stop the recruitment process. He argued that it could only be initiated after Prof Fajana’s term ended in July 2026.
Prof Mosito contended that the Council had acted unlawfully and prematurely by starting the recruitment process before a formal vacancy arose in the Vice-Chancellor’s office, in contravention of Section 16 of the NUL Act.
Prof Mosito maintained that the law required a joint committee of the Council and Senate responsible for selecting a Vice-Chancellor to be constituted only after a vacancy had arisen.
When the matter came before High Court Judge Molefi Makara, the Council, represented by Advocate (Adv) Mamello Makau, challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute was essentially a labour matter. It further sought the recusal of the entire High Court bench, arguing that the judges would be partial as Prof Mosito’s colleagues on the bench.
Justice Makara dismissed both the jurisdictional and recusal objections, prompting the Council to approach the Court of Appeal.
Adv Makau had on 11 September 2026, during the Court of Appeal roll call of cases to be heard during this second session, said the Council would no longer be pursuing the recusal bid.
When the matter was called this week, lawyers representing both parties were summoned to chambers by the presiding Judge, Johann van der Westhuizen.
Following discussions, Justice van der Westhuizen announced in open court that the parties had failed to agree on a proposed order presented by Prof Mosito’s lawyer, Adv Tumelo Qophe, to uphold and respect Court of Appeal’s Justice Phillip Musonda’s 1 June 2026 order.
This would be in exchange of Prof Mosito agreeing to the withdrawal of the Council’s recusal application and perhaps ensuring a favorable cost order to all involved parties.
Justice Musonda had halted the ongoing recruitment, selection and appointment process for a substantive Vice-Chancellor pending the final determination of the substantive proceedings before Justice Makara.
The order also addressed succession arrangements following the expiry of Prof Fajana’s term on 31 July 2026.
Justice Musonda ruled that, once the vacancy arose, Section 17(4) of the National University of Lesotho Order 1992 would take effect, requiring the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Prof Mosito, to assume the powers, functions and duties of the Vice-Chancellor in an acting capacity until a substantive appointment was lawfully made.
The order further prohibited any person or university authority from taking steps inconsistent with, or intended to circumvent, the statutory provision until all issues under dispute had been resolved.
Adv Qophe had presented the proposed order to Adv Makau, arguing that the Council’s withdrawal of its appeal should not be interpreted as terminating or suspending the order issued by Justice Musonda on 1 June 2026.
Adv Qophe wanted the Court of Appeal to confirm that the prohibition on continuing the recruitment process would remain in force pending the final determination of the proceedings before Justice Makara.
He also sought an order barring the Council from taking any action that could undermine or circumvent the order granted by Justice Musonda.
However, Adv Makau rejected the proposed order, informing Justice van der Westhuizen that the Council was not prepared to accept it without an opportunity to respond.
The court consequently gave the Council an opportunity to file opposing papers, further delaying the resolution of the dispute.
Explaining the impasse in open court, Justice van der Westhuizen said the Council had given notice of its intention to withdraw the appeal seeking the recusal of the entire High Court bench in September, but such a withdrawal required either the respondent’s agreement or the court’s permission.
“Notice of withdrawal was given in September this year. However, the requirements for the withdrawal is that the opponent, the respondent (Prof Mosito), must agree to it, or the court must give permission,” Justice van der Westhuizen said.
He explained that Prof Mosito had responded with heads of argument seeking a consequential order to preserve certain protections if the appeal was withdrawn.
“In other words, they say you can withdraw the appeal, but we want certain orders in place about what the results of that will be regarding the rest of the proceedings,” he said.
Justice van der Westhuizen said the proposed order had become the main obstacle to the withdrawal because the Council wanted an opportunity to respond to the document, which had only been presented shortly before the hearing.
“So the university, understandably, seeing that the respondent, the university, must have an opportunity to respond. So that means we cannot go ahead with this withdrawal today,” he said.
Justice van der Westhuizen also confirmed that the Council intended to seek the recusal of members of the appeal panel, adding another potential hurdle to the protracted dispute.
Adv Makau indicated that the Council intended to apply for the recusal of the panel, including Justice Mabatšoeneng Hlaele, who had joined the panel that morning after another judge, Justice Tekane Maqakachane – an NUL lecturer, recused himself from the matter. Justice Hlaele is also a former NUL lecturer.
Justice van der Westhuizen stressed that any recusal application would have to be formally lodged and supported by evidence, with both parties given an opportunity to state their positions.
“That, of course, has to be a proper formal application, supported by the necessary evidence, etc. Again, both sides will need the opportunity to say their say,” he said.
He added that the additional procedural steps required time, making it impractical to postpone the matter to an earlier specific date.
Justice van der Westhuizen consequently postponed the appeal to the next session of the Court of Appeal in April next year.
“The decision is then simple on our side. By consent the matter is postponed to the next session,” he said.
Background
The Council first suspended Prof Mosito on 22 April 2026, accusing him of “rendering the university ungovernable in pursuit of personal interests which conflict with the best interests of the university that he should be protecting”.
Prof Mosito challenged the suspension in the Labour Court.
On 1 June, Justice Musonda halted the recruitment process and ordered that the statutory succession mechanism be preserved.
When Prof Fajana’s contract expired on 31 July, Prof Mosito was reportedly blocked from entering the Roma campus, while the Council appointed Professor Motlatsi Molati as Acting Vice-Chancellor.
On 2 August, the Council terminated Prof Mosito’s four-year contract as Pro-Vice-Chancellor, two years before its scheduled expiry. However, it maintained that he remained an academic staff member in the Faculty of Law.
On 14 September, the Court of Appeal found that the Council had failed to comply with Justice Musonda’s June order. It declared Prof Molati’s appointment and Prof Mosito’s dismissal ineffective for as long as the June order remained operative, directing that the consequences of those decisions be reversed.
Prof Mosito returned to NUL the following day. He subsequently lifted the suspension of substantive Registrar Liteboho Maqalika-Lerotholi and terminated Dr Lipalesa Mathe’s appointment as Acting Registrar. The Council directed him to reverse those decisions.
On 23 September, the Council resolved to suspend Prof Mosito from the office of Acting Vice-Chancellor with immediate effect. In a letter dated 24 September, Dr Matlosa said the suspension followed Prof Mosito’s failure to comply with a directive to reverse his decisions concerning the Registrar.
Prof Mosito rejected the suspension, maintaining that the Council had no legal authority to remove him from office in that manner.
The dispute subsequently took another turn after the Council reported alleged trespass to the police to block Prof Mosito from reporting for duty.
