Selebalo v Starllion Security (LC 15 of 10) [2011] LSLC 1 (25 August 2011)

Selebalo v Starllion Security (LC 15 of 10) [2011] LSLC 1 (25 August 2011)

The retrenchment was substantively unfair as it was based on deliberate misrepresentation by the respondent that Letseng Diamond Mine demanded the applicant's removal, when in fact no such demand was made. The settlement agreement regarding retrenchment was invalid due to this misrepresentation. The offer of alternative employment at a reduced salary was unilateral and not the result of proper consultation, thus the applicant was justified in refusing it.

Citation
[2011] LSLC 1
Parties
Applicant: Leloko Selebalo; Respondent: Stallion Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
25 August 2011
Case Number
LC 15 of 10
Procedural Posture
Labour / Judgment
Outcome
Claim for unfair retrenchment upheld; compensation awarded.
Legal Topics
Unfair Retrenchment, Misrepresentation, Employment Contract, Consultation in Retrenchment, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Source Language
English
Labour Law Unfair Retrenchment Misrepresentation Employment Contract Consultation in Retrenchment Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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

Parties

Leloko Selebalo

Applicant

Stallion Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's retrenchment was substantively fair
  2. 2 Whether the respondent misrepresented the reason for retrenchment
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement was valid given the alleged misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The retrenchment was substantively unfair as it was based on deliberate misrepresentation by the respondent that Letseng Diamond Mine demanded the applicant's removal, when in fact no such demand was made. The settlement agreement regarding retrenchment was invalid due to this misrepresentation. The offer of alternative employment at a reduced salary was unilateral and not the result of proper consultation, thus the applicant was justified in refusing it.

Court Disposition

Claim for unfair retrenchment upheld; compensation awarded.

Orders

  • The purported retrenchment of applicant constitutes an unfair retrenchment.
  • Respondent to pay 18 months’ salary as compensation for the unfair retrenchment.