Semuli v Score Furnishers (Maputsoe) (LC 101 of 97) [1999] LSLC 4 (30 March 1999)

Semuli v Score Furnishers (Maputsoe) (LC 101 of 97) [1999] LSLC 4 (30 March 1999)

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of two years and three months in filing the claim, and there were no prospects of success or evidence of importance to justify condonation. The respondent's version was preferred, and no good cause was shown.

Citation
[1999] LSLC 4
Parties
Applicant: Isaac Semuli; Respondent: Score Furnishers (Maputsoe)
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
30 March 1999
Case Number
LC 101 of 97
Procedural Posture
Labour / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Condonation, Limitation Period
Source Language
English
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Condonation Limitation Period

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

Parties

Isaac Semuli

Applicant

Score Furnishers (Maputsoe)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim for unfair dismissal is time-barred under Section 70(1) of the Labour Code Order 1992
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for condonation of late filing

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of two years and three months in filing the claim, and there were no prospects of success or evidence of importance to justify condonation. The respondent's version was preferred, and no good cause was shown.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for condonation is dismissed.
  • Costs shall be costs in the cause.