Likopo Libe V WASCO (CIV/APN/0028/2023) [2024] LSHC 52 (22 March 2024)

Likopo Libe V WASCO (CIV/APN/0028/2023) [2024] LSHC 52 (22 March 2024)

The delay in filing the answering affidavit was not unreasonably long and was satisfactorily explained by the CEO due to a national water crisis and absence of a key officer; the matter is important and the respondents are entitled to be heard. Condonation is granted and the Rule 30 application is dismissed.

Citation
[2024] LSHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Likopo Libe; 1st Respondent: Management Water and Sewage Company (Pty) Ltd (WASCO); 2nd Respondent: Limpho Debeshe, Director Corporate Services; 3rd Respondent: Tokelo Selapi, Water Production Manager; 4th Respondent: Water and Sewarage Company (Pty) Ltd (WASCO)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Case Number
CIV/APN/0028/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Condonation and Rule 30 Application
Outcome
Condonation granted; Rule 30 application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Condonation, Irregular Proceedings, Judicial Review, Employer Employee Relations
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Employment Law Condonation Irregular Proceedings Judicial Review Employer Employee Relations

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Likopo Libe

Applicant

Management Water and Sewage Company (Pty) Ltd (WASCO)

1st Respondent

Limpho Debeshe, Director Corporate Services

2nd Respondent

Tokelo Selapi, Water Production Manager

3rd Respondent

Water and Sewarage Company (Pty) Ltd (WASCO)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Condonation and Rule 30 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether good cause was shown for condonation of late filing of answering affidavit
  2. 2 Whether the answering affidavit should be set aside as an irregular step under Rule 30

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in filing the answering affidavit was not unreasonably long and was satisfactorily explained by the CEO due to a national water crisis and absence of a key officer; the matter is important and the respondents are entitled to be heard. Condonation is granted and the Rule 30 application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Condonation granted; Rule 30 application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for condonation is granted.
  • Rule 30 application is dismissed.