Lerotholi Polytechnic v Lisene (LAC/CIV 5 of 2008) [2009] LSLAC 1 (20 January 2009)

Lerotholi Polytechnic v Lisene (LAC/CIV 5 of 2008) [2009] LSLAC 1 (20 January 2009)

The respondent was denied procedural fairness by not being allowed legal representation as required by Statute 18(5) and the disciplinary committee failed to exercise its discretion; there was no valid, clear, or consistently applied rule prohibiting the respondent's conduct; the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair; reinstatement is the appropriate remedy in the absence of evidence that it is impracticable.

Citation
[2009] LSLAC 1
Parties
Appellant: Lerotholi Polytechnic; Respondent: Blandinah Lisene
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
20 January 2009
Case Number
LAC/CIV 5 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Labour Court confirmed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Legal Representation in Disciplinary Proceedings, Procedural Fairness, Reinstatement, Codes of Good Practice, Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Source Language
English
Labour Law Employment Law Administrative Law Unfair Dismissal Legal Representation in Disciplinary Proceedings Procedural Fairness Reinstatement Codes of Good Practice +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lerotholi Polytechnic

Appellant

Blandinah Lisene

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to review the DDPR award or acted as an appellate court
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was unfairly denied legal representation at the disciplinary hearing
  3. 3 Whether there was a valid disciplinary rule prohibiting the respondent's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was denied procedural fairness by not being allowed legal representation as required by Statute 18(5) and the disciplinary committee failed to exercise its discretion; there was no valid, clear, or consistently applied rule prohibiting the respondent's conduct; the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair; reinstatement is the appropriate remedy in the absence of evidence that it is impracticable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Labour Court confirmed.

Orders

  • Proceedings and findings of the Staff Disciplinary Committee and subsequent Council proceedings set aside.
  • Respondent's dismissal set aside.