Mokapane and Others v Lieu & Lesotho Precious Garments (LC 76 of 5) [2005] LSLC 14 (15 November 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] LSLC 14
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Court
- Labour Court
- Posture
- Labour / Quantum Determination After Contempt Application
- Case number
- LC 76 of 5
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Posture
- Labour / Quantum Determination After Contempt Application
- Case number
- LC 76 of 5
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantJohn Lieu & Lesotho Precious Garments
Respondent Counsel: Mr. MohaleroeAmounts and remedies
- Compensation Period (days): 252
03
Procedural history
Posture
Labour / Quantum Determination After Contempt Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether applicant is entitled to compensation for period between expected reinstatement and judgment
- 02
Whether delay in filing contempt proceedings and mitigation of loss affect compensation
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
Legal principles
- 01
Court's prior decision
Delay in filing contempt proceedings may affect remedy but was already considered in declining reinstatement.
- 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.
Labour Court
Judgment
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.
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.