MASERU-A serious legal battle has erupted at Naledi Funeral Planners (Pty) Ltd, with a group of shareholders and directors approaching the High Court of Lesotho, Commercial Division, to challenge what they describe as unlawful and irregular decisions affecting the company.
Court papers filed in Maseru show that the matter involves deep divisions within the company’s leadership and raises questions about corporate control, management, and the role of public offices in company administration.
At the centre of the case is Malefetsane Tlelima, who says he is the chairman of the board of directors and a shareholder of Naledi Funeral Planners. In a founding affidavit sworn before the court, Tlelima states that he brings the application both in his personal capacity and on behalf of other shareholders and directors who have authorised him to act for them.
He explains that the group decided to institute legal proceedings after a company resolution taken on 22 January 2026. According to him, this resolution was adopted because certain decisions had been made which they believe were unlawful and irregular, and which were harming the company’s structures, management, interests, and day-to-day operations.
“The effect of these decisions has been to negatively impact how the company is run,” he says in his affidavit, adding that the situation has become serious enough to require the intervention of the court.
The applicants listed in the matter include Tlelima as the first applicant, followed by Thoolo Mohapi Sheea, Soaile Mochaba, Bonang Phooko, and Mphamo Tente. Naledi Funeral Planners (Pty) Ltd itself is also cited as the sixth applicant. All, according to the court papers, are shareholders and directors of the company and are bringing the case in both capacities.
On the other side are nine respondents. These include several individuals, among them Thabiso Madiba, Khojane Madiba, Tšolo Seutloali, Mohau Linake, Sidwell Jackson, Christopher Kao, and Retšepile Linake, as well as the Registrar of Companies and the Attorney General.
Although the full details of the disputed decisions are contained in the main application, the founding affidavit gives a clear picture of a company in turmoil. Tlelima states that he has personal knowledge of most of the facts he places before the court, while other information is drawn from company documents in his possession. Where necessary, he relies on records held by the company secretary, Advocate Peter Matekane, whose supporting affidavit is attached to confirm those facts.
He further explains that he is deposing to the affidavit not only for himself but also to avoid unnecessary duplication by having several applicants each file similar statements. This, he says, is meant to prevent burdening the court record.
The applicants’ main concern, as reflected in the documents, is that the decisions taken without proper authority or procedure have interfered with the lawful management of Naledi Funeral Planners. They argue that these actions threaten the stability of the business and the interests of its legitimate shareholders and directors.
By approaching the Commercial Division of the High Court, the applicants are seeking clarity, protection, and corrective measures from the judiciary. They want the court to examine how certain changes or actions were made, who authorised them, and whether they comply with company law and established corporate governance principles.
Legal analysts say disputes of this nature are becoming increasingly common as companies grow and internal power struggles emerge. When shareholders and directors disagree over control, management, or registration matters, the Registrar of Companies is often drawn into the dispute, as appears to be the case here. The inclusion of the Attorney General also suggests that the applicants believe public authorities may have played a role in decisions they now contest.
In corporate law, directors are expected to act in the best interests of the company and in accordance with its founding documents and the law. When decisions are taken outside these boundaries, affected parties have the right to seek the court’s intervention. The court can review the legality of such decisions, set them aside, and issue orders aimed at restoring proper governance.
For Naledi Funeral Planners, a company operating in the sensitive funeral services sector, stability and public trust are critical. Prolonged internal conflict can disrupt operations, affect employees, and undermine confidence among clients who rely on the company at vulnerable moments in their lives.
The applicants argue that this is precisely why the matter cannot be left unresolved. They maintain that unless the court steps in, the ongoing disputes will continue to damage the company’s reputation and functioning.
The case is now before the High Court, which will consider the affidavits and any opposing papers to be filed by the respondents. Once all documents are in, the court is expected to hear arguments from both sides before making a ruling.
For now, the filing of the application marks the formal beginning of what could be a lengthy court process. It is a process that may not only determine who lawfully controls Naledi Funeral Planners, but also set an important example for how corporate disputes are handled in Lesotho.
As the matter unfolds, attention will focus on the evidence presented, the role of the Registrar of Companies, and whether the contested decisions will withstand legal scrutiny. What is clear is that the shareholders behind the application are determined to fight for what they say is the lawful management and future of their company
