Kome v Ministry of Public Service (CIV/APN 190 of 10) [2013] LSHC 106 (6 September 2013)

Kome v Ministry of Public Service (CIV/APN 190 of 10) [2013] LSHC 106 (6 September 2013)

The court found that the Applicants were unfairly discriminated against by being excluded from the salary upgrades, and that the Respondents’ concession to upgrading rendered the claim for arrear salaries a matter of arithmetic calculation. The court held that all prayers, including retrospective salary arrears, should be granted under further and alternative relief.

Citation
[2013] LSHC 106
Parties
Applicant: Molefi Kome; Applicant: Retimeletsoe Marai; Applicant: Jakobo Mothebesoane; Applicant: Teboho Martins; Applicant: Realeboha Ramoholi; Applicant: Mabusetsa Makharilele; Applicant: Taelo Lehana; Applicant: Ts’eliso Ts’enoli; Applicant: Tholeng Mofokeng; Applicant: Motlatsi Mohapeloa; Respondent: Ministry of Public Service; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
6 September 2013
Case Number
CIV/APN 190 of 10
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in full
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Equal Treatment, Retrospective Salary Upgrading, Public Service Employment, Remedies in Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Labour Law Administrative Law Discrimination Equal Treatment Retrospective Salary Upgrading Public Service Employment Remedies in Judicial Review

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molefi Kome

Applicant

Retimeletsoe Marai

Applicant

Jakobo Mothebesoane

Applicant

Teboho Martins

Applicant

Realeboha Ramoholi

Applicant

Mabusetsa Makharilele

Applicant

Taelo Lehana

Applicant

Ts’eliso Ts’enoli

Applicant

Tholeng Mofokeng

Applicant

Motlatsi Mohapeloa

Applicant

Ministry of Public Service

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of Applicants from salary upgrading constituted unfair discrimination contrary to the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether Applicants are entitled to retrospective salary arrears and upgrading
  3. 3 Whether damages can be awarded by way of motion proceedings as further and alternative relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants were unfairly discriminated against by being excluded from the salary upgrades, and that the Respondents’ concession to upgrading rendered the claim for arrear salaries a matter of arithmetic calculation. The court held that all prayers, including retrospective salary arrears, should be granted under further and alternative relief.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in full

Orders

  • All prayers in the Notice of Motion granted, including declaration of invalidity of discriminatory decision, equal treatment and upgrading, payment of salary arrears, and costs awarded to Applicants.