Makhooane and Others v Jikelele Services (Pty) Ltd (LC 41 of 2013) [2015] LSLC 26 (11 May 2015)

Makhooane and Others v Jikelele Services (Pty) Ltd (LC 41 of 2013) [2015] LSLC 26 (11 May 2015)

The respondent failed to consult the applicants directly as required by law, rendering the dismissals procedurally unfair. The applicants did not substantiate substantive unfairness, so only procedural unfairness was found.

Citation
[2015] LSLC 26
Parties
Applicant: Retšelisitsoe Makhooane; Applicant: Tokelo Liphafa; Applicant: ‘Makhotso Monyeke; Applicant: ‘Matiisetso Ramojapoho; Applicant: Napo Chabeli; Applicant: Molefeng Molefeng; Applicant: Khoabane Makotoko; Applicant: Mathula Hlehlisi; Applicant: Lepae Hlehlisi; Applicant: Polaki Mosola; Respondent: Jikele Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
11 May 2015
Case Number
LC 41 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
applicants' dismissals declared procedurally unfair; compensation awarded
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Compensation
Source Language
English
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Compensation

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Retšelisitsoe Makhooane

Applicant

Tokelo Liphafa

Applicant

‘Makhotso Monyeke

Applicant

‘Matiisetso Ramojapoho

Applicant

Napo Chabeli

Applicant

Molefeng Molefeng

Applicant

Khoabane Makotoko

Applicant

Mathula Hlehlisi

Applicant

Lepae Hlehlisi

Applicant

Polaki Mosola

Applicant

Jikele Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' dismissals for operational requirements were procedurally and substantively fair

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to consult the applicants directly as required by law, rendering the dismissals procedurally unfair. The applicants did not substantiate substantive unfairness, so only procedural unfairness was found.

Court Disposition

applicants' dismissals declared procedurally unfair; compensation awarded

Orders

  • Respondent to compensate each applicant M27,000.00 within 30 days
  • No order as to costs