22 Key issue to be determined The issue to be determined was whether a citizen could lose property rights in Lesotho if he or she acquired citizenship of another country. Summary of judgment • In Lesotho, land could not be owned by an individual; it was held in trust for the Basotho people by the King. Through state organs, the King allocated rights or granted rights and interests in land to individuals. Rights over land were limited to occupation and use of the land. • In terms of section 38 of the Constitution of Lesotho, every person born in Lesotho was a citizen of Lesotho especially if he was not born while his parents were on diplomatic service in Lesotho or were enemy aliens. Further sections 41(1) and 41(2) forbid persons to hold dual citizenship. Citizenship by birth or descent could be lost where, for example, a person in search for a job acquired citizenship in South Africa. • The applicant stated that the deceased lost Lesotho citizenship and acquired South African citizenship and it was necessary for the applicant to prove that allegation. The legislature passed the Lesotho Citizenship Order 1971 where it expressed the intent that citizenship by birth should not be lost lightly. Under section 22(2) of the Lesotho Citizenship Order 1971, renunciation of citizenship had to be registered with the Registrar General and the relevant Minister could even refuse to accept the formal rejection if its acceptance was not conducive to public good. • The court noted that when the 1st respondent married the deceased in 1975, she was entitled to citizenship of Lesotho upon taking an oath of loyalty and obedience to the state of Lesotho and applying to be registered as a citizen, under the terms of section 40 of the Constitution of Lesotho. Even though the 1st respondent had not formally rejected her South African citizenship, according to the court, she had a right to hold land by virtue of the indefinite home that her marital status entitled her to. The court noted that section 6(1)(b) of the Land Act 1979 gave any foreigner a right to possess land provided he or she had a permit of indefinite home. There was evidence that the 1st respondent possessed a permit for indefinite home given by the Government of Lesotho. • The issue of the re-allocation of the disputed land was handled initially by chiefs and the land allocating authority but the question of citizenship was not raised in that forum. What was considered by the chiefs was the succession of the deceased’s estate. The 3rd respondent, who was the Principal Chief of Likhoele, made a decision relating to succession. He refused to accept the person who was suggested as a successor and the deceased’s widow was nominated as the successor in place of her husband. • The court noted that the applicant’s arguments defeated his case. If it was true as the applicant said, that the deceased got South African citizenship by naturalisation on June 17, 1992, then the land in dispute should have been returned to the state or the CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST