Ramots'abe v Rector, Lerotholi Polytechnic (CIV/APN 412 of 13) [2013] LSHC 94 (26 September 2013)

Ramots'abe v Rector, Lerotholi Polytechnic (CIV/APN 412 of 13) [2013] LSHC 94 (26 September 2013)

The Senate of Lerotholi Polytechnic was required to observe the audi alteram partem rule before making decisions adversely affecting the applicants' rights or legitimate expectations. The applicants had valid contracts and legitimate expectations to complete their diplomas in two years, as evidenced by their certificates of registration and prior Senate decisions. The respondents' failure to afford a fair hearing before unilaterally changing the programme duration and withdrawing the right to repeat failed subjects violated the applicants' common law procedural rights. The 4th, 5th, and 15th applicants had locus standi as they demonstrated direct and substantial interest and, in the case...

Citation
[2013] LSHC 94
Parties
1st Applicant: Tsenyehelo Ramotsabe; 2nd Applicant: Maleseho Thethe; 3rd Applicant: Bolae Letsapo; 4th Applicant: Kekeletso Motselili; 5th Applicant: Sebolelo Maribe; 6th Applicant: Abia Monyane; 7th Applicant: Mapuso Mohlomi; 8th Applicant: Tseliso Motlotlo; 9th Applicant: Thandiwe Maponzo; 10th Applicant: Refiloe Moliko; 11th Applicant: Lehlohonolo Mosala; 12th Applicant: Malefu Lekomola; 13th Applicant: Nthoto Phephetho; 14th Applicant: Teboho Matabane; 15th Applicant: Matseliso Maraisane; 16th Applicant: Molemane Malefane; 17th Applicant: Motsamai Lehloka; 18th Applicant: Mapaseka Sepamo; 1st Respondent: Rector, Lerotholi Polytechnic; 2nd Respondent: Lerotholi Polytechnic
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
26 September 2013
Case Number
CIV/APN 412 of 13
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Administrative Law Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed. Respondents' application for stay of execution refused.
Legal Topics
Audi Alteram Partem, Legitimate Expectation, Student Rights, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Contract Law Education Law Audi Alteram Partem Legitimate Expectation Student Rights Statutory Interpretation

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

Tsenyehelo Ramotsabe

1st Applicant

Maleseho Thethe

2nd Applicant

Bolae Letsapo

3rd Applicant

Kekeletso Motselili

4th Applicant

Sebolelo Maribe

5th Applicant

Abia Monyane

6th Applicant

Mapuso Mohlomi

7th Applicant

Tseliso Motlotlo

8th Applicant

Thandiwe Maponzo

9th Applicant

Refiloe Moliko

10th Applicant

Lehlohonolo Mosala

11th Applicant

Malefu Lekomola

12th Applicant

Nthoto Phephetho

13th Applicant

Teboho Matabane

14th Applicant

Matseliso Maraisane

15th Applicant

Molemane Malefane

16th Applicant

Motsamai Lehloka

17th Applicant

Mapaseka Sepamo

18th Applicant

Rector, Lerotholi Polytechnic

1st Respondent

Lerotholi Polytechnic

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Administrative Law Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Senate of Lerotholi Polytechnic was required to observe the audi alteram partem rule before withdrawing its earlier decision allowing applicants to repeat failed subjects and complete their diplomas in two years.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation and contractual right to complete their diplomas within the originally agreed two-year period.
  3. 3 Whether the 4th, 5th, and 15th applicants had locus standi.

Ratio Decidendi

The Senate of Lerotholi Polytechnic was required to observe the audi alteram partem rule before making decisions adversely affecting the applicants' rights or legitimate expectations. The applicants had valid contracts and legitimate expectations to complete their diplomas in two years, as evidenced by their certificates of registration and prior Senate decisions. The respondents' failure to afford a fair hearing before unilaterally changing the programme duration and withdrawing the right to repeat failed subjects violated the applicants' common law procedural rights. The 4th, 5th, and 15th applicants had locus standi as they demonstrated direct and substantial interest and, in the case...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Respondents' application for stay of execution refused.

Orders

  • 2nd respondent to reinstate the applicants to their registered status and teach them to enable completion of their diplomas within a minimum period of two years as originally agreed.
  • Respondents to pay the costs.