Mathabo Lephoto V PS- Office of the Prime Minister & 4 Others (CIV/APN/0219/2022) [2023] LSHC 257 (2 August 2023)

Mathabo Lephoto V PS- Office of the Prime Minister & 4 Others (CIV/APN/0219/2022) [2023] LSHC 257 (2 August 2023)

The withdrawal of concurrence by the 2nd respondent was a preliminary step in a multi-staged decision and did not have a direct legal effect on the applicant’s rights; thus, it was not reviewable. There was no legal obligation for the applicant to be heard at that stage, nor was there a proven failure to give reasons for a final decision. The applicant failed to establish a clear legal right to the transfer or the absence of an alternative remedy, precluding the grant of a mandamus.

Citation
[2023] LSHC 257
Parties
Applicant: ‘Mathabo Liphoto; 1st Respondent: PS-Office of the Prime Minister; 2nd Respondent: DCE-Disaster Management Authority; 3rd Respondent: PS-Public Service; 4th Respondent: Public Service Commission; 5th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
2 August 2023
Case Number
CIV/APN/0219/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/administrative Law / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Mandamus, Non Joinder, Audi Alteram Partem, Failure to Give Reasons
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Employment Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Mandamus Non Joinder Audi Alteram Partem Failure to Give Reasons

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

‘Mathabo Liphoto

Applicant

PS-Office of the Prime Minister

1st Respondent

DCE-Disaster Management Authority

2nd Respondent

PS-Public Service

3rd Respondent

Public Service Commission

4th Respondent

The Attorney General

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/administrative Law / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the withdrawal of concurrence to applicant’s transfer request by the 2nd respondent is a reviewable decision
  2. 2 Whether failure to give reasons for the withdrawal constitutes a ground for review
  3. 3 Whether applicant is entitled to a mandamus directing effect of her lateral transfer

Ratio Decidendi

The withdrawal of concurrence by the 2nd respondent was a preliminary step in a multi-staged decision and did not have a direct legal effect on the applicant’s rights; thus, it was not reviewable. There was no legal obligation for the applicant to be heard at that stage, nor was there a proven failure to give reasons for a final decision. The applicant failed to establish a clear legal right to the transfer or the absence of an alternative remedy, precluding the grant of a mandamus.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed in its entirety with costs