Mapetja v Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LC 48 of 4) [2005] LSLC 1 (8 February 2005)

Mapetja v Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LC 48 of 4) [2005] LSLC 1 (8 February 2005)

The LHWC directive and the Chief Executive's announcement created a legitimate expectation that the applicant's contract would be extended to 30th September 2004. The respondent's failure to extend the applicant's contract while extending others in similar positions was discriminatory and unlawful. The applicant is entitled to salary and benefits for the period April to September 2004 as if the contract had been extended.

Citation
[2005] LSLC 1
Parties
Applicant: Likhang Mapetja; Respondent: Lesotho Highlands Development Authority
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
8 February 2005
Case Number
LC 48 of 4
Procedural Posture
Labour / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for applicant
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Legitimate Expectation, Unlawful Termination, Discrimination, Retrenchment, Staff Separation Policy
Source Language
English
Employment Law Administrative Law Fixed Term Contracts Legitimate Expectation Unlawful Termination Discrimination Retrenchment Staff Separation Policy

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Likhang Mapetja

Applicant

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's contract was unlawfully terminated contrary to the LHWC directive and established practice
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation of contract extension
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was unfairly discriminated against in the non-extension of his contract

Ratio Decidendi

The LHWC directive and the Chief Executive's announcement created a legitimate expectation that the applicant's contract would be extended to 30th September 2004. The respondent's failure to extend the applicant's contract while extending others in similar positions was discriminatory and unlawful. The applicant is entitled to salary and benefits for the period April to September 2004 as if the contract had been extended.

Court Disposition

judgment for applicant

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicant his salary and other benefits for the period April 2004 to 30th September 2004 as if the contract had been extended.
  • Order to be complied with within thirty days and no later than 22nd March 2005.