Lesotho Communications Authority V Mamarame Matela & 3 Others (CIV/APN/0120/2022) [2024] LSHC 167 (31 October 2024)

Lesotho Communications Authority V Mamarame Matela & 3 Others (CIV/APN/0120/2022) [2024] LSHC 167 (31 October 2024)

The applicant’s witnesses were credible and corroborated each other that the first respondent took the laptop, iPad, and voice recorder. The first respondent’s explanations were inconsistent and not credible. The applicant discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent has the applicant’s property and must return them.

Citation
[2024] LSHC 167
Parties
Applicant: Lesotho Communications Authority; 1st Respondent: Mamarame Matela; 2nd Respondent: Officer Commanding Maseru Central Charge Office; 3rd Respondent: Commissioner of Police; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Case Number
CIV/APN/0120/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Recovery of Property, Burden of Proof, Suspension of Employment, Return of Employer Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Employment Law Recovery of Property Burden of Proof Suspension of Employment Return of Employer Property

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

Parties

Lesotho Communications Authority

Applicant

Mamarame Matela

1st Respondent

Officer Commanding Maseru Central Charge Office

2nd Respondent

Commissioner of Police

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is in possession of the applicant’s property (laptop, iPad, voice recorder) and must return them
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has discharged the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant’s witnesses were credible and corroborated each other that the first respondent took the laptop, iPad, and voice recorder. The first respondent’s explanations were inconsistent and not credible. The applicant discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent has the applicant’s property and must return them.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to release to the applicant: (i) Dell laptop with spare adapter serial number 8Y68NF2; (ii) 12-inch iPad Pro serial number DLXY15D2K7RG; (iii) Philips recording device/audio recorder serial number DVT27108GB.
  • Applicant is awarded costs of the matter.