Leaked letters seen by the Tribune show the National University of Lesotho resisting a Court of Appeal order that makes Pro-Vice-Chancellor K.E. Mosito acting vice-chancellor when the current VC’s term ends on 31 July, as Mosito warns of contempt and the court’s registry rejects the university’s bid to overturn the order.
A Court of Appeal order says Professor K.E. Mosito is to take over as acting vice-chancellor of the National University of Lesotho when the current vice-chancellor’s term ends this month. The university is resisting, and its two most senior officers are now in open legal conflict, according to leaked correspondence seen by the Lesotho Tribune.
Two letters, one from Mosito to Vice-Chancellor Professor I.O. Fajana dated 12 July, and one from the Court of Appeal registry to the university dated 14 July, set out a dispute that runs from a demand for the return of a laptop to a warning of contempt proceedings and a rejected attempt to have the court reconsider its own order.
The order that makes Mosito acting vice-chancellor
According to Mosito’s letter, the Court of Appeal delivered its reasons on 5 June 2026 in a matter numbered C of A (CIV) No. 24/2026. He says paragraph 39 of that judgment declares the legal consequences that follow when the office of vice-chancellor falls vacant by effluxion of time: section 17(4) of the National University of Lesotho Order 1992 operates automatically, and he is to assume and perform the powers and duties of acting vice-chancellor.
The order, he writes, also prohibits the university, its organs and anyone acting through them from taking steps that undermine, frustrate or circumvent that assumption of office, and is binding immediately unless a competent court discharges, rescinds or varies it. Fajana’s contract, Mosito notes, expires on 31 July 2026.
The laptop demand
The immediate trigger is a demand. Mosito’s letter responds to one from Fajana dated 10 July, which he says relied on an earlier precautionary suspension and exclusion and demanded that he surrender an HP Pavilion laptop, said to bear a stated serial number and university barcode.
Mosito rejects the demand. He denies possession of the laptop described in the letter, and says any device made available to him was issued during his first term as pro-vice-chancellor, from 2019 to 2023, under a contract that has since ended. He disputes that section 16(8) of the NUL Order, which he says concerns the vice-chancellor’s power to suspend or exclude staff, gives the university a power to recover property or withdraw facilities while a contract of employment is still running. He also states that the legality of his suspension is before the Labour Court, and so cannot be treated as settled.
He frames the timing of the demand as a concern. Coming after the Court of Appeal order and shortly before he is due to assume the acting office, the demand, he writes, creates a reasonable apprehension that it may be aimed at obstructing the operation of paragraph 39 rather than at verifying an asset. He asked the university to produce the asset register, procurement record and any signed acknowledgement for the laptop by 13 July.
“It is impossible for me to act against the clear provisions of the above cited statutes.”
Assistant Registrar, Court of Appeal of Lesotho, to the university
A warning of contempt, and of leaving the country
Mosito’s letter carries a formal warning. He states that any further step that treats the demand as established misconduct, brings disciplinary charges over a laptop he says was never issued to him, interferes with his assumption of office, or otherwise seeks to render the court’s order ineffective, will bring an urgent approach to the court for contempt relief, with costs sought against those responsible, in some cases personally.
He goes further. Because Fajana’s employment ends on 31 July and because, in Mosito’s words, it is understood he may then leave Lesotho, the letter warns that if there is objective evidence of an intention to depart in order to evade the court’s processes, urgent relief will be sought, which could include an order for the surrender of a passport. Mosito writes that departure from Lesotho cannot lawfully be used to defeat existing judicial authority.
The university’s bid to overturn the order, rejected
The second letter shows the university trying another route, and being turned away. Writing to the university’s Director of Legal Services, Advocate M. Makau, the Court of Appeal’s Assistant Registrar, Advocate Mosito Rabotsoa, addresses what the university called an urgent request for the “review and reconsideration” of the order in C of A (CIV) No. 24/2026.
The registry rejects it. It says the material the university delivered on 5 June did not amount to a process known to the Court of Appeal Act 1978 or its rules, and that a litigant cannot, by letter, ask the court to reconsider an interlocutory order while proceedings are still pending. The court’s limited power to revisit its own decisions, the letter says, applies only to final judgments in narrow circumstances, and cannot be used as a disguised appeal. The registry says it will take no further administrative action on the request in its present form, and that receipt of the correspondence does not confer validity on it.
The university has not, in the letters seen by the Tribune, accepted that it is bound to stand aside. The correspondence shows it demanding the laptop, relying on the suspension, and pressing the court to look again at its order.
The Lesotho Tribune has approached the university, the office of the vice-chancellor and Professor Mosito for comment. Their responses will be carried when received. The legality of Mosito’s suspension remains before the Labour Court and has not been decided.
