NUL bemoans Appeal Court’s handling of its cases 

…effectively questions court’s impartiality in dealing with cases involving its leader, Prof Mosito 

Moorosi Tsiane 

THE National University of Lesotho (NUL) has publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Court of Appeal has handled legal disputes involving the institution, saying the court’s conduct has raised serious concerns about fairness, consistency and impartiality. 

In a strongly worded statement released this week, the university accused the Court of Appeal of treating its cases inconsistently, arguing that the handling of matters involving the institution has created “legitimate institutional concerns” and undermined public confidence in the administration of justice. 

The university’s concerns stem from ongoing litigation initiated by its Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Professor Kananelo Mosito, who challenged the university’s recruitment process for the appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor. 

Prof Mosito, is also the president of the Court of Appeal, meaning the university’s cases involving him are heard by his peers in the very court he leads.  In one case, his peer, Judge Philip Musonda, effectively ruled in his favour by dismissing the NUL Council’s appeal for the recusal of High Court Judges from Hearing Prof Mosito’s case. Justice Musonda also directed that Prof Mosito be effectively appointed Acting Vice Chancellor when incumbent, Professor Olusola Isaac Fajana’s term expires on 31 July 2016. 

This, the NUL Council insists, has put the administration of justice into ill repute.   

The Council suspended Prof Mosito on 22 April 2026 for “rendering the university ungovernable in pursuit of personal interests which conflict with the best interests of the university that he should be protecting”. 

This after Prof Mosito had sued the Council for starting the process of replacing Prof Fajana. 

Prof Mosito had argued that the Council could not start the process of recruiting a new Vice Chancellor until that office became officially vacant. 

He argued that Section 16 of the National University of Lesotho Act only permitted the establishment of a joint Council and Senate selection committee , to select a new candidate, once a vacancy in the office of Vice Chancellor had actually arisen. 

According to the NUL statement, the university Council commenced the recruitment exercise after the incumbent Vice-Chancellor, Professor Olusola Isaac Fajana, formally notified the institution that he would not renew his contract when it expires on 31 July 2026. 

NUL said that when the matter was first brought before the High Court, it raised two preliminary objections. The university argued that the dispute was essentially a labour matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court and also sought the recusal of High Court judges because Prof Mosito served as a colleague to High Court judges whilst he was also employed by NUL. 

The university argued that Prof Mosito’s dual role created circumstances capable of giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias. 

However, the High Court dismissed both objections saying judges were impartial, prompting the university to appeal. 

NUL said that despite those appeals still pending, the High Court had intended to continue hearing the main case, forcing the university to urgently approach the Court of Appeal seeking a stay of the High Court proceedings and an expedited hearing of the jurisdictional appeals. 

It is from that point, the university says, that it became increasingly dissatisfied with the manner in which the Court of Appeal dealt with its matters. 

“The University remains concerned by the manner in which these proceedings thereafter unfolded,” the statement read. 

Although the Court of Appeal granted a stay of the High Court proceedings, NUL said acting Court of Appeal, Justice Philip Musonda, a peer of Prof Mosito, declined to fast-track the university’s pending jurisdictional appeals. 

The university further complained that the Court of Appeal went beyond the relief sought by any party when it stopped the recruitment of the new Vice-Chancellor. 

“More significantly, the Court of Appeal granted orders restraining the recruitment of the University’s new Vice-Chancellor, describing those orders as preservative relief, notwithstanding that such relief had not been sought by any party. 

“In the University’s respectful view, those orders had the practical effect of determining the central dispute before the substantive appeals had been heard,” the statement said. 

Believing the orders exceeded what had been requested and prejudiced its statutory mandate, NUL said it filed an urgent application on 5 June 2026 seeking a review and reconsideration of the Court of Appeal’s orders. 

However, the university says that application has effectively been ignored, leaving the Council frustrated. 

“To date, the University has neither received an acknowledgement of that urgent application from the Registry of the Court of Appeal nor any directions concerning its hearing.” 

NUL contrasted that treatment with the speed at which another case involving the National University of Lesotho Student Union (NULSU), the Student Representative Council (SRC) and SRC president, Tumo Tsanyane, was handled. 

The university noted that after the High Court struck the students’ application off the roll with costs on 22 June for failing to comply with court rules, an appeal was lodged the following day. 

Within two days, the Court of Appeal Registry had already directed the university to file answering papers under what it described as exceptionally compressed timelines. 

“This contrast has raised legitimate institutional concerns regarding consistency in the administrative handling of matters involving the University,” the statement read. 

The university also questioned the timing of a circular issued by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. 

It pointed out that on 24 June, the same day the Council was informed that its urgent review application remained unacknowledged, the Registrar issued Circular No. 3 of 2026 regarding the publication of Practice Directive No. 1 of 2026 dealing with petitions for leave to review, correct or set aside final decisions of the Court of Appeal. 

Given that the President of the Court of Appeal is also directly involved in litigation concerning the university’s governance and recruitment of its Vice-Chancellor, NUL said the developments have inevitably fuelled public concern. 

“These developments have inevitably created public perceptions that require careful consideration in the interests of maintaining confidence in the administration of justice,” the university said. 

While stressing that it respects the judiciary and recognises the importance of an independent judicial system, NUL said judicial independence must also be accompanied by impartiality and fairness. 

“Judicial independence must equally be accompanied by judicial impartiality, procedural certainty and the appearance of fairness. 

“Public confidence in the justice system depends not only upon justice being done but also upon justice being manifestly seen to be done.” 

The university said it was “deeply concerned” that unresolved conflicts of interest, inconsistent procedural treatment, extraordinary litigation timelines and court orders extending beyond the relief sought had combined to create an appearance that ordinary safeguards of impartial adjudication “may not have been fully observed”. 

Despite its grievances, NUL reaffirmed its commitment to resolving the disputes through lawful judicial processes. 

“The University remains committed to resolving all disputes through lawful judicial processes. It will continue to pursue every legal avenue available to protect its statutory autonomy, preserve sound governance and ensure that the appointment of its new Vice-Chancellor proceeds in accordance with the law.” 

The university said the litigation extends beyond the interests of individuals and touches on broader constitutional principles. 

“This matter transcends the interests of any individual. It concerns the integrity of public institutions, respect for constitutional governance and the fundamental principle that all litigants must receive equal, impartial and timely treatment before the law.” 

NUL expressed hope that all outstanding proceedings would be dealt with “expeditiously and transparently” in order to strengthen public confidence in both the country’s higher education sector and the administration of justice. 

The post NUL bemoans Appeal Court’s handling of its cases  appeared first on Lesotho Times.