Administrative Law

The Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho v Matela (C of A (CIV) 85/19) [2020] LSCA 48 (30 October 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

Administrative Law – Substantive legitimate expectation – Effect of new policy on existing rights and legitimate expectations – are such rights and legitimate expectations extinguished thereby.

Appeal against decision of high Court enforcing employees legitimate expectations- Appeal dismissed with costs.

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                    C of A (CIV) NO. 85/2019   

                                                                     CIV/APN/197/2019

In the Matter between:-

 

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE                                              1ST APPELLANT

KINGDOM OF LESOTHO                       

Mokoma v Commander of the Defence Force (C of A (CIV)69/18) [2020] LSCA 43 (30 October 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

Summary trial in the Defence Force of Lesotho- appeal against sentence passed under summary trial on a retired member of the Lesotho Defence Force- sentence imposed under the wrong provision of the act-matter referred to summary trial court for it to pass sentence in terms of the law.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

 HELD AT MASERU                                                          C OF A (CIV) 69/2018

                                                                                                   CIV /APN 361/2017

In the matter between:

LIKOTSI MOKOMA                                                                        APPELLENT

 

AND

 

School Board of Mapoteng High School v Teaching Service Commission (C of A (CIV) 07/20) [2020] LSCA 21 (30 October 2020);

Share

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                               C of A (CIV NO.07) 2020

                                                                    CIV/APN/448/19

In the Matter Between

SCHOOL BOARD OF MAPOTENG HIGH SCHOOL    APPELLANT

AND

TEACHING SERVICE COMMISSION               1ST RESPONDENT

SCHOOLS SECRETERIAT (LECSA)                2ND RESPONDENT

Theko v The Commissioner of Police (CIV/APN/196/20) [2020] LSHC 42 (15 October 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

Administrative law- The applicant is challenging being transferred without being afforded a pre-transfer hearing on account of exceptions to the general rule- Having found that the facts of the case do not justify invocation of the exceptions to the general rule, the application succeeds with costs.

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                                              CIV/APN/196/2020

 

In the Matter Between:-

 

 

MOLETSANE THEKO                                                 APPLICANT                                                

AND

 

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE                              1ST RESPONDENT

 

Khotle v The Principal Sectretary- Ministry of Finance (CIV/APN/215/19) [2019] LSHC 59 (14 November 2019);

Share
Search Summary: 

CASE SUMMARY:  Administrative laws – Applicant dismissed from work after apparently pleading guilty to the charges – Chairperson of the disciplinary committee convicting the applicant without ensuring that she really admitted guilt of the alleged breaches – No outline of facts being made- Role of chairpersons of disciplinary committees when the accused employee pleads guilty to the charges.

-Held:  It was irregular for the chairperson of the disciplinary committee to the applicant merely on the basis that the pleading guilty to the charges without satisfying himself that indeed the facts disclosed commission of the alleged breaches of discipline.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                                                   CIV/APN/215/19

 

In the Matter Between:-

NTHABISENG KHOTLE                                                                              APPLICANT

AND

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE                      1ST RESPONDENT

Former Employees of Lesotho Agricultural Development Bank v The Government of Lesotho (CIV/APN/375/19) [2020] LSHC 24 (15 October 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: The applicant had launched a review application against the Government’s decision not to pay terminal benefits due to them on the basis of the Government’s guarantee to pay, which was made in the wake, of the now defunct Lesotho Agricultural Development Bank’s collapse- The applicants basing their case on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations- The requirements of this doctrine considered and applied- Held, that the applicants had substantive legitimate expectation that their terminal benefits would be paid by Government, and the Government’s decision not to honour its guarantee to pay them entitled the applicants to seek redress before the courts- Held, further, that the Government’s decision not to pay is reviewed and set aside.

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                                          CIV/APN/375/2019

 

In the Matter Between:-

 

 

FORMER EMPLOYEES OF LESOTHO

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK                APPLICANT                                                      

AND

 

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM

Tjamela v Commissioner of Police (CIV/APN/167/20) [2020] LSHC 23 (15 October 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Applicant was precautionarily suspended on full pay- He challenges this suspension on the ground that he was not afforded pre-suspension hearing- Application succeeds with costs.

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                                           CIV/APN/167/2020

 

In the Matter Between:-

 

 

THABO TJAMELA                                                  APPLICANT                                                   

AND

 

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE                                    1ST RESPONDENT

 

Senekane v Commander of Lesotho Defence Force (CIV/T/241/20) [2020] LSHC 21 (15 October 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Plaintiff seeking a review of the Commander’s decision to discharge him,  by issuing summons, not through motion proceedings as enjoined by Rule 50 of the High Court Rules- Propriety of the procedure dealt with- The court found that there is nothing wrong with seeking to review an administrative decision through issuance of summons- Discretionary powers- Exercise of discretionary powers to discharge a soldier in terms of s.31 (c ) of the Lesotho Defence Force Act dealt with- The motive, and its relevance, for the exercise of public power considered- Held, that because the Commander had weaponized his discretionary power, the exercise thereof was unlawful- The plaintiff’s claim succeeds with costs.

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                                           CIV/T/241/2008

 

In the Matter Between:-

 

 

MOKITIMI SENEKANE                                                 PLAINTIFF                                                       

AND

 

COMMANDER OF LESOTHO DEFENCE FORCE                1ST DEFENDANT

 

The Attorney General v The Registrar, High Court/ Nyakane v Director of Public Prosecution (CIV/APN/305/19) [2019] LSHC 49 (17 September 2019);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                                       CIV/APN/305/2019

                                                                        CRI/T/001/18;

                                                                             CRI/T/002/18;

                                                                             CRI/T/ 003/18;

Three Zeds v Ranthocha (CIV/APN/61/09) [2018] LSHC 32 (30 August 2018);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

                                                        CIV/APN/61/09

 

In the matter between:-

 

THREE ZEDS (PTY) LTD                                           APPLICANT

 

And

 

LINEO ‘MANTSATSI RANTHOCHA                         1ST RESPONDENT

PROPERTY INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD               2ND RESPONDENT

MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT                    3RD RESPONDENT

Pages