Moletsane v Mathapholane (LC 30 of 9) [2010] LSLC 5 (14 April 2010)

Moletsane v Mathapholane (LC 30 of 9) [2010] LSLC 5 (14 April 2010)

The applicant was not retrenched but terminated due to disagreement over salary; minimum wage for small business applied; respondent failed to prove payment for 22 days worked, so applicant's claim for those days succeeds.

Citation
[2010] LSLC 5
Parties
Applicant: Mamoleletsane Moletsane; Respondent: Malitlakala Mathapholane
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
14 April 2010
Case Number
LC 30 of 9
Procedural Posture
Labour Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
Claim for unfair retrenchment and underpayments dismissed; claim for payment of 22 days succeeds.
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Minimum Wage, Termination of Employment, Payment of Wages
Source Language
English
Labour Law Retrenchment Minimum Wage Termination of Employment Payment of Wages

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamoleletsane Moletsane

Applicant

Malitlakala Mathapholane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unfairly retrenched
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was underpaid
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to payment for 22 days worked in January 2009

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not retrenched but terminated due to disagreement over salary; minimum wage for small business applied; respondent failed to prove payment for 22 days worked, so applicant's claim for those days succeeds.

Court Disposition

Claim for unfair retrenchment and underpayments dismissed; claim for payment of 22 days succeeds.

Orders

  • Respondent to calculate and pay applicant's wage for 22 days worked in January 2009 by 15 May 2010.
  • No order as to costs.