Moorosi Matela & 12 Others V The Government of Lesotho & 6 Others (CIV/APN/197/2019) [2019] LSHC 113 (14 November 2019)

Moorosi Matela & 12 Others V The Government of Lesotho & 6 Others (CIV/APN/197/2019) [2019] LSHC 113 (14 November 2019)

The applicants established both procedural and substantive legitimate expectations: procedurally, they were entitled to a hearing before non-renewal of their contracts due to a long-standing practice of renewal; substantively, clear and focused promises were made to absorb them as permanent and pensionable public officers. The respondents failed to justify reneging on these promises, and the failure to finalize the creation and grading of positions was due to inefficiency and lack of political will, not overriding public interest. The decision not to renew the contracts without a hearing and to abandon the absorption process was irregular, procedurally unfair, unlawful, and amounted to an...

Citation
[2019] LSHC 113
Parties
Applicant: Moorosi Matela and 12 Others; 1st Respondent: The Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho; 2nd Respondent: P. S Ministry of Tourism; 3rd Respondent: Ministry of Tourism, Environment; 4th Respondent: P. S Ministry of Public Service; 5th Respondent: Public Service Commission; 6th Respondent: Ministry of Public Service; 7th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Case Number
CIV/APN/197/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Administrative Law Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Legitimate Expectation, Employment Contracts, Absorption Into Public Service
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Employment Law Legitimate Expectation Procedural Fairness Substantive Legitimate Expectation Employment Contracts Absorption Into Public Service

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moorosi Matela and 12 Others

Applicant

The Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho

1st Respondent

P. S Ministry of Tourism

2nd Respondent

Ministry of Tourism, Environment

3rd Respondent

P. S Ministry of Public Service

4th Respondent

Public Service Commission

5th Respondent

Ministry of Public Service

6th Respondent

Attorney General

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Administrative Law Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to renew applicants’ employment contracts was irregular, procedurally unfair and unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation to be absorbed as permanent and pensionable public officers under MTEC
  3. 3 Whether the court can order respondents to facilitate applicants’ engagement as permanent and pensionable public officers

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants established both procedural and substantive legitimate expectations: procedurally, they were entitled to a hearing before non-renewal of their contracts due to a long-standing practice of renewal; substantively, clear and focused promises were made to absorb them as permanent and pensionable public officers. The respondents failed to justify reneging on these promises, and the failure to finalize the creation and grading of positions was due to inefficiency and lack of political will, not overriding public interest. The decision not to renew the contracts without a hearing and to abandon the absorption process was irregular, procedurally unfair, unlawful, and amounted to an...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • The decision by the 2nd respondent not to award the applicants new employment contracts with the 3rd respondent Ministry is set aside as irregular, procedurally unfair and unlawful.
  • The 2nd to 6th respondents are directed and ordered to finalize the process of creating and grading positions for the applicants within eight months from the date of judgment, and upon finalization, to employ the applicants as permanent and pensionable public officers under the 3rd respondent Ministry.