Goodwill Auto Clinic v Masenkane and Another (LC/REV 29 of 2007) [2014] LSLC 41 (3 December 2014)

Goodwill Auto Clinic v Masenkane and Another (LC/REV 29 of 2007) [2014] LSLC 41 (3 December 2014)

The applicant failed to demonstrate prospects of success on review, which is a mandatory requirement for rescission. The explanation for default was reasonable, but without prospects of success, rescission cannot be granted.

Citation
[2014] LSLC 41
Parties
Applicant: Goodwill Auto Clinic; 1st Respondent: Seng Masenkane; 2nd Respondent: DDPR
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
3 December 2014
Case Number
LC/REV 29 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Review and Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Judgment Granted by Default
Outcome
Rescission application refused; previous judgment reinstated; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Review Proceedings, Unfair Dismissal, Default Judgment
Source Language
English

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goodwill Auto Clinic

Applicant

Seng Masenkane

1st Respondent

DDPR

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Review and Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Judgment Granted by Default

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for default
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated prospects of success on review
  3. 3 Whether rescission should be granted in absence of prospects of success

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate prospects of success on review, which is a mandatory requirement for rescission. The explanation for default was reasonable, but without prospects of success, rescission cannot be granted.

Court Disposition

Rescission application refused; previous judgment reinstated; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The rescission application is refused.
  • The judgment of this court dated 8th November 2012 is reinstated.