Lesotho Communication Authority v Matela (CIV/APN/0120/202) [2022] LSHC 148 (15 August 2022)

Lesotho Communication Authority v Matela (CIV/APN/0120/202) [2022] LSHC 148 (15 August 2022)

The applicant's claim is not a dispute concerning the application or interpretation of a breach of contract of employment, as the employment contract had expired. The claim is for restoration of possession of property (mandament van spolie), not enforcement of employment rights. Therefore, the High Court's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 148
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
15 August 2022
Case Number
CIV/APN/0120/202
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (jurisdiction)
Outcome
Preliminary objection (lack of jurisdiction) dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Labour Disputes, Spoliation, Pleadings
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Labour Disputes Spoliation Pleadings

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2
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 / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim for spoliation arising out of an employment relationship
  2. 2 Whether it is permissible for a party to argue an unpleaded point

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's claim is not a dispute concerning the application or interpretation of a breach of contract of employment, as the employment contract had expired. The claim is for restoration of possession of property (mandament van spolie), not enforcement of employment rights. Therefore, the High Court's jurisdiction is not ousted by section 226(2)(b)(ii) of the Labour Code (Amendment) Act, 2000. Further, the 1st respondent cannot argue lack of jurisdiction based on sections 24 and 25 of the Amendment Act as these were not pleaded.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection (lack of jurisdiction) dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The point in limine on the lack of jurisdiction is dismissed with costs.