Kule and Others v Lesotho Highlands Development Authority and Another (LC/REV 77 of 8) [2010] LSLC 11 (28 May 2010)

Kule and Others v Lesotho Highlands Development Authority and Another (LC/REV 77 of 8) [2010] LSLC 11 (28 May 2010)

The grounds raised by the applicants did not point to any irregularity in the arbitration proceedings but rather to dissatisfaction with the arbitrator's conclusions; thus, the application was an appeal disguised as a review and is incompetent.

Citation
[2010] LSLC 11
Parties
Applicant: Lebohang Kule; Applicant: Tseliso Mphale; Applicant: Malebo Mohlakoana; Applicant: Jobo Mohlakoana; Applicant: Poulo Katse; Respondent: Lesotho Highlands Development Authority; Respondent: Directorate of Disputes Prevention & Resolution
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Case Number
LC/REV 77 of 8
Procedural Posture
Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review Vs Appeal, Employment Contracts, Unequal Treatment, Allowances
Source Language
English
Labour Law Review Vs Appeal Employment Contracts Unequal Treatment Allowances

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

Parties

Lebohang Kule

Applicant

Tseliso Mphale

Applicant

Malebo Mohlakoana

Applicant

Jobo Mohlakoana

Applicant

Poulo Katse

Applicant

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority

Respondent

Directorate of Disputes Prevention & Resolution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application is in substance an appeal and thus incompetent
  2. 2 Whether contracts entered into with a non-juristic entity are unlawful
  3. 3 Whether applicants suffered unequal treatment regarding mountain allowance

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds raised by the applicants did not point to any irregularity in the arbitration proceedings but rather to dissatisfaction with the arbitrator's conclusions; thus, the application was an appeal disguised as a review and is incompetent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Point in limine upheld
  • No order as to costs