Labour Commissioner v De Freitas (LC 110 of 96) [1997] LSLC 15 (31 July 1997)

Labour Commissioner v De Freitas (LC 110 of 96) [1997] LSLC 15 (31 July 1997)

The applicant failed to prove that the respondent, and not the Maluti Snack Bar, was the employer of the complainant. Personal liability cannot be imposed on the respondent without establishing the employment relationship.

Citation
[1997] LSLC 15
Parties
Applicant: Labour Commissioner; Respondent: Anthony De Freitas
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
31 July 1997
Case Number
LC 110 of 96
Procedural Posture
Labour / Judgment on Application for Default Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Locus Standi, Default Judgment, Personal Liability
Source Language
English
Labour Law Employment Relationship Locus Standi Default Judgment Personal Liability

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Labour Commissioner

Applicant

Anthony De Freitas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour / Judgment on Application for Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was the employer of the complainant or whether the employer was the Maluti Snack Bar
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established locus standi against the respondent personally

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the respondent, and not the Maluti Snack Bar, was the employer of the complainant. Personal liability cannot be imposed on the respondent without establishing the employment relationship.

Court Disposition

application dismissed