Moshabesha v Lesotho Bank (LC 20 of 94) [1995] LSLC 14 (23 August 1995)

Moshabesha v Lesotho Bank (LC 20 of 94) [1995] LSLC 14 (23 August 1995)

The applicant was not entitled to legal representation at the disciplinary hearing, and the employer's refusal did not invalidate the proceedings. The presence of the complainant on the panel was irregular, but the subsequent appeal to the General Manager, who was not part of the initial panel and who addressed the applicant's grounds of appeal, cured the procedural defects. The simultaneous imposition of demotion and salary reduction was contrary to the contract, but this was corrected on appeal. The applicant was not prejudiced in a manner that would nullify the proceedings, except for the period when both penalties were imposed.

Citation
[1995] LSLC 14
Parties
Applicant: Nthabiseng Moshabesha; Respondent: Lesotho Bank
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
23 August 1995
Case Number
LC 20 of 94
Procedural Posture
Labour Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Employee Representation, Demotion, Salary Reduction, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Labour Law Disciplinary Proceedings Employee Representation Demotion Salary Reduction Procedural Fairness

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nthabiseng Moshabesha

Applicant

Lesotho Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to legal representation at the disciplinary hearing
  2. 2 Whether the presence of the complainant on the disciplinary panel invalidated the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied the right to mitigate sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to legal representation at the disciplinary hearing, and the employer's refusal did not invalidate the proceedings. The presence of the complainant on the panel was irregular, but the subsequent appeal to the General Manager, who was not part of the initial panel and who addressed the applicant's grounds of appeal, cured the procedural defects. The simultaneous imposition of demotion and salary reduction was contrary to the contract, but this was corrected on appeal. The applicant was not prejudiced in a manner that would nullify the proceedings, except for the period when both penalties were imposed.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were regular and fairly conducted.
  • The penalty imposed by the General Manager as of 1st February 1994 is confirmed.