Molikuoa Sekhonyana & Ano. V Principal Secretary-Ministry of Public Service & 4 Others (C of A (CIV) 70/2024) [2025] LSCA 42 (2 May 2025)

Molikuoa Sekhonyana & Ano. V Principal Secretary-Ministry of Public Service & 4 Others (C of A (CIV) 70/2024) [2025] LSCA 42 (2 May 2025)

The exclusion of the appellants from regrading to Grade J under Circular No. 7 of 2013 was irrational and arbitrary because they performed equivalent functions to those regraded, and the refusal was based solely on titular differences, contrary to the constitutional requirement of rational, fair, and lawful...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] LSCA 42
Parties
1st Appellant: Molikuoa Sekhonyana; 2nd Appellant: Makhauta Masita; 1st Respondent: Principal Secretary – Ministry of Public Service; 2nd Respondent: Principal Secretary – Ministry of Education & Training; 3rd Respondent: Principal Secretary – Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Culture; 4th Respondent: The Public Service Commission; 5th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
2 May 2025
Case Number
C of A (CIV) 70/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Rationality, Unreasonableness, Public Service Regrading, Equality Before the Law, Administrative Justice
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Employment Law Judicial Review Rationality Unreasonableness Public Service Regrading Equality Before the Law +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molikuoa Sekhonyana

1st Appellant

Makhauta Masita

2nd Appellant

Principal Secretary – Ministry of Public Service

1st Respondent

Principal Secretary – Ministry of Education & Training

2nd Respondent

Principal Secretary – Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Culture

3rd Respondent

The Public Service Commission

4th Respondent

The Attorney General

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of officers from regrading under Circular No. 7 of 2013 was lawful and rational
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing relief and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of the appellants from regrading to Grade J under Circular No. 7 of 2013 was irrational and arbitrary because they performed equivalent functions to those regraded, and the refusal was based solely on titular differences, contrary to the constitutional requirement of rational, fair, and lawful administrative action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside
  • Refusal to regrade the appellants from Grade H to Grade J under Circular No. 7 of 2013 declared irrational