Lesotho Judgment

Labour Court

Mokapane and Others v Lieu & Lesotho Precious Garments (LC 76 of 5) [2005] LSLC 14 (15 November 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Applicant is entitled to compensation for wages lost from date she ought to have been reinstated to date of judgment, with adjustments for industry practice of short time and periods of full wages, as delay and mitigation were either already considered or not applicable post-finalization.

Court disposition

applicant awarded compensation for lost wages as specified

Orders

  • Payment of applicant’s wages from 22nd November 2004 to 30th November 2004
  • Payment of two weeks wages for each month from December 2004 to March 2005
  • Payment of full month’s wages for April 2005 to July 2005
  • Order to be complied with no later than 15th December 2005

02

Material facts

Parties

Makhobise Mokapane & 2 Ors

Applicant

John Lieu & Lesotho Precious Garments

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Mohaleroe

Amounts and remedies

  • Compensation Period (days): 252

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Labour / Quantum Determination After Contempt Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant seeks compensation by payment of salary from date she should have been reinstated to date of judgment.
Respondent
Respondent argues court should consider delay in bringing contempt application and steps taken by applicant to mitigate loss.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's prior decision

    Delay in filing contempt proceedings may affect remedy but was already considered in declining reinstatement.

  2. 02

    Court's reasoning

    Mitigation of loss is relevant only when the matter is pending finalization, not after rights have been determined.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Applicant is entitled to compensation for wages lost from date she ought to have been reinstated to date of judgment, with adjustments for industry practice of short time and periods of full wages, as delay and mitigation were either already considered or not applicable post-finalization.

Court disposition

applicant awarded compensation for lost wages as specified

  • Payment of applicant’s wages from 22nd November 2004 to 30th November 2004
  • Payment of two weeks wages for each month from December 2004 to March 2005
  • Payment of full month’s wages for April 2005 to July 2005
  • Order to be complied with no later than 15th December 2005

Source and reliance status

Labour Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Labour Court

Judgment

[2005] LSLC 14

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF LESOTHO LC/76/05

HELD AT MASERU

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN MAKHOBISE MOKAPANE & 2 ORS

APPLICANTS AND JOHN LIEU & LESOTHO PRECIOUS GARMENTS

RESPONDENT AWARD/ORDER OF COURT We have heard arguments on the quantum. Applicant seeks to be compensated by the payment of salary from date she should have been reinstated to the date of judgment. Mr. Mohaleroe for the respondent suggested that the court should consider two factors namely; the length of time the applicant took to bring this contempt application to court and the steps that applicant took to mitigate her loss. We must point out right away that the first factor i.e. the delay in filing the contempt proceedings has already been considered hence why the court declined reinstatement. The second factor would in our view be relevant if the applicant’s case had not yet been finalized. It is during that time when the matter is pending finalization when a wronged party is required to take steps to mitigate. In casu, applicant had had his rights determined by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction. She ought to have therefore been at work, not mitigating. In assessing the quantum we have considered the fact that the textile industry practice what is called short time between October and March. The effect of this is that in a month an employee would effectively work two weeks and be temporarily laid off for the other two weeks. It follows therefore that between December 2004 and March 2005 compensation due shall be two weeks wages for those four months. From April to end of July applicant will be paid the full wages that she would have earned if she had been reinstated in accordance with the DDPR award. The full compensation therefore stands thus: 1. Payment of applicant’s wages from the 22nd November 2004 when she ought to have been reinstated to 30th November 2004.

2. Payment of two weeks wages for the months of December 2004 to March 2005.

3. Payment of full month’s wages for the period April 2005 to July 2005.

4. This order ought to be complied with no later than 15th December 2005. THUS DONE AT MASERU THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2005 L. A. LETHOBANE

PRESIDENT My panellists agree.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.