Government

Mothala V Director General of the National Security Services (CIV/APN/66/2018) [2022]LSHC 57 (12 August 2022);

Share
Flynote: 

         

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

Held in Maseru

                                                                                       CIV/APN/66/2018

In the matter between:

 

LIETSISO MOTHALA AND 77 OTHERS                  APPLICANTS

 

And

 

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE

NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES                          1ST RESPONDENT

Commissioner of Police V Lesotho Police Staff Association (C of A No. 32/2021) [2022]LSCA 22 (13 May 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

Summary

Police Association and some police officers suing Commissioner of Police in no less than four related applications for promoting certain police officers to senior ranks allegedly on his own without involvement of Police Appointments and Promotions Board, as well as suing the promoted officers, to set aside promotions as unlawful and contrary to law;

 

After initially filing notices of intention to oppose, Attorney General withdrawing such notices believing defendants had no case;

 

Presiding Judge consolidating the cases and at hearing raising mero motu the lack of standing of private legal practitioner engaged by Commissioner of Police and promoted officers after withdrawal of Attorney General and after hearing argument thereon finding such practitioner not entitled to represent them under the aegis of Attorney General’s office but not deciding whether such representation in defendants’ individual capacity not permissible in the circumstances;

 

Having found against representation by private legal practitioner, presiding Judge proceeding to determine merits of applications without hearing the parties;

 

On appeal Held – presiding judge not having decided whether or not representation by private legal practitioner was altogether not permissible on the facts of the case, declining to decide the issue and leaving it to the High Court to do so on remittal of the cases;

 

Held further that presiding judge fell into error in determining  merits without hearing the parties, and accordingly judgments and orders of High Court set aside and cases remitted to be heard and determined by another Judge, subject to him or her giving directions to ensure any outstanding pleadings are filed and litigation proceeds in the ordinary way.

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                           C OF A (CIV) No. 32/2021                                                                                                                     

                                                              CIV/APN/130/2020

   CIV/APN/134/2020

  CIV/APN/135/2020

   CIV/APN/136/2020

 

In the matter between

 

Tsikoane V Principal Secretary - Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations (C of A No. 51/2021) [2022]LSCA 21 (13 May 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

Ambassador of Lesotho to Italy remaining in Rome for a month after his tour of duty and tenure came to an end; Ambassador claiming he was entitled to salary for the one month on grounds that he carried on duties as ambassador during that month; Ministry contesting that he performed any duty as ambassador and his contract of engagement having come to an end he was not entitled to any salary; Ambassador failing to prove that he did any work and therefore entitled to salary;

High Court having dismissed his application with costs, on appeal, Held appeal should be dismissed; On costs order of High Court set aside and substituted with one ordering each party to bear its own cost; Each party also ordered to bear its costs of appeal

               

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                            C of A (CIV) No.51 /2021                                                                                                                                   

                                                                CIV/APN/312/2021

 

 

In the matter between

 

Principal Secretary Ministry of Public Service V Mabaso (C of A No. 47/2021) [2022]LSCA 15 (13 May 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

Summary

 

The Government of Lesotho’s (GoL) failure, amongst others, to comply with Reg.32(1) of the Public Service Regulations 2008 requiring the principal secretary of the Public Service to consult receiving ministries when a transfer of a public officer is contemplated was held by the High Court to be unlawful and therefore reviewed and set aside. On appeal the GoL argued that the regulation was not mandatory in every case and that the High Court erred in so concluding.

Held on appeal that the High Court did not err, and the appeal dismissed with costs.

 

 

 

 

IN THE APPEAL COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                            C of A (CIV) No.: 47/2021

                                                                          C of A CIV/APN/146/2021

       C of A CIV/APN/149/2021

                                                                            

In the matter between:

 

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF

Kompi V The Government of Lesotho (C of A No. 43B/2021) [2022]LSCA 12 (13 May 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY:

The appellants who were appointed on contract in the Lesotho public service in terms of a written contract agreed to refer any dispute arising from the implementation or execution of the employment contract to binding arbitration in terms of the provisions of the Public Service Act 2005 as amended. When the Crown determined that the contracts had terminated, they approached the High Court to seek declaratory and review relief instead of asking the court under s 4 of the Arbitration Act 12 of 1980 to not bind them to the arbitration agreement. The High Court declined jurisdiction because the appellants were bound by the agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration. Appeal against the High Court’s judgment dismissed, with costs.

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU

C OF A (CIV) 43B/2021

In the matter between:

 

TSOKOLO FRANZ KOMPI                                                      1ST APPELLANT

MPHO SILVIA MOHLOAI                                                       2ND APPELLANT

MAKHAUHELO SUZAN LEISANYANE                                    3RD APPELLANT

Principal Secretary Higher Education V Metsing (C of A No.13/2021) [2022]LSCA 07 (13 May 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

Summary

A public officer challenging a decision dismissing him by way of review in the High Court. Court of Appeal restating that such complaints must be pursued under the grievance procedure in the Public Service Act 2005.

 

 

 

 

IN THE APPEAL COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                C of A (CIV) 13/2021

                                                               

In the matter between:

 

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER

EDUCATION                                                       1ST APPELLANT

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE                  2ND APPELLANT

Makgothi V AUCOR Lesotho (CCT/0326/2021) [2022]LSHC 05 (12 February 2022);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

 

Proceedings against Government – It is sufficient to cite Attorney General in his nominal capacity where Government is sued – Where Attorney General is cited, it is not necessary but convenient for purposes of ensuring compliance to cite a Minister instead of a Ministry or Department.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Commercial Court Division)

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                         CCT/ 0326/2021

 

 

LESEGO MAKGOTHI                                                APPLICANT

 

AND

 

AUCOR LESOTHO                                                     1ST RESPONDENT

Mokaeane V Principal Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations (C of A (CIV) 28/2021) [2021] LSCA 36 (12 November 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

Summary

The Government of Lesotho’s admitted failure to honour payment of its foreign service employee’s children’s school fees in terms of Public Service Regulation 2008, not a good ground for excusing it from its statutory obligations. High Court’s failure to order the Government to honour its commitments in strict compliance with the relevant regulation held to be a misdirection.

 

 

IN THE APPEAL COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                C of A (CIV) 28/2021

 

In the matter between:

 

                RETHABILE MAHLOMPHO MOKAEANE                   APPELLANT

 

AND

 

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF  FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS                                                                                                               1ST RESPONDENT