Abubaker and Another v Kheleli and Others (LAC/REV.06/05; LC/25/09; LC/REV/297/06) [2010] LSLC 2 (16 March 2010)

Abubaker and Another v Kheleli and Others (LAC/REV.06/05; LC/25/09; LC/REV/297/06) [2010] LSLC 2 (16 March 2010)

Applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not prosecuting the review, acted wilfully in ignoring court reminders, and lacked a bona fide defence with prospects of success; application was not bona fide but intended to delay respondents' claim.

Citation
[2010] LSLC 2
Parties
Applicant: Ashraf Abubaker; Applicant: Kolonyama Candle Co.; Respondent: Mathuso Khelei; Respondent: Mamoren Mafeka; Respondent: Mahlomola Mafeka
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Case Number
LAC/REV.06/05 ; LC/25/09 ; LC/REV/297/06
Procedural Posture
Labour Review/reinstatement Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Review
Outcome
Application for reinstatement refused; dismissal of review confirmed; DDPR award confirmed.
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Review, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Severance Pay, Employer Liability, Rescission Principles
Source Language
English
Labour Law Reinstatement of Review Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Severance Pay Employer Liability Rescission Principles

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashraf Abubaker

Applicant

Kolonyama Candle Co.

Applicant

Mathuso Khelei

Respondent

Mamoren Mafeka

Respondent

Mahlomola Mafeka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Review/reinstatement Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided reasonable explanation for failure to prosecute the review
  2. 2 Whether the application for reinstatement was bona fide or intended to delay respondents' claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had a bona fide defence with prospects of success

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not prosecuting the review, acted wilfully in ignoring court reminders, and lacked a bona fide defence with prospects of success; application was not bona fide but intended to delay respondents' claim.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement refused; dismissal of review confirmed; DDPR award confirmed.

Orders

  • Application for reinstatement of review is refused.
  • Order dismissing the review is confirmed.