Khauhelo Moeno v Security Lesotho (Pty) (LC 58 of 2012) [2013] LSLC 71 (14 October 2013)

Khauhelo Moeno v Security Lesotho (Pty) (LC 58 of 2012) [2013] LSLC 71 (14 October 2013)

The respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its default, rendering the application for rescission unsustainable despite the existence of a potential defence. The application was found to be intended to delay the applicant's claim. Procedural irregularities alleged by the respondent are not grounds for rescission but for review, which was not the procedure invoked.

Citation
[2013] LSLC 71
Parties
Applicant: Khauhelo Moeno; Respondent: Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
14 October 2013
Case Number
LC 58 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission refused; judgment reinstated; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Unfair Dismissal, Default Judgment, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
English
Labour Law Rescission of Judgment Unfair Dismissal Default Judgment Procedural Irregularity

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

Parties

Khauhelo Moeno

Applicant

Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent met the requirements for rescission of judgment obtained by default
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for default was satisfactory
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has a bona fide defence to the main claim

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its default, rendering the application for rescission unsustainable despite the existence of a potential defence. The application was found to be intended to delay the applicant's claim. Procedural irregularities alleged by the respondent are not grounds for rescission but for review, which was not the procedure invoked.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission refused; judgment reinstated; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is refused.
  • The judgment of this Court is reinstated.