Bakubung Seutloali V Commissioner Lesotho Correctional Service & 2 Others (CIV/APN/0193/2022) [2022] LSHC 250 (3 October 2022)

Bakubung Seutloali V Commissioner Lesotho Correctional Service & 2 Others (CIV/APN/0193/2022) [2022] LSHC 250 (3 October 2022)

The applicant failed to adduce credible evidence to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he was intimidated into pleading guilty or that the respondents' actions denied him the right to appeal. Both grounds for review were not established in fact or law.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 250
Parties
Applicant: Bakubung Seutloali; 1st Respondent: Commissioner Lesotho Correctional Service; 2nd Respondent: Chairman of Disciplinary Committee; 3rd Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
3 October 2022
Case Number
CIV/APN/0193/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Dismissal From Employment, Disciplinary Proceedings, Right to Fair Hearing, Review of Administrative Action
Source Language
English
Employment Law Administrative Law Dismissal From Employment Disciplinary Proceedings Right to Fair Hearing Review of Administrative Action

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakubung Seutloali

Applicant

Commissioner Lesotho Correctional Service

1st Respondent

Chairman of Disciplinary Committee

2nd Respondent

Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was intimidated into pleading guilty at the disciplinary hearing
  2. 2 Whether failure to provide the disciplinary record within 14 days denied the applicant the right to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to adduce credible evidence to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he was intimidated into pleading guilty or that the respondents' actions denied him the right to appeal. Both grounds for review were not established in fact or law.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.