Molikuoa Sekhonyana V P.S Ministry of Public Service & 4 Others (CIV/APN/0300/2022) [2024] LSHC 229 (13 September 2024)

Molikuoa Sekhonyana V P.S Ministry of Public Service & 4 Others (CIV/APN/0300/2022) [2024] LSHC 229 (13 September 2024)

Applicants failed to establish they were similarly circumstanced as Chief Legal Officers or directors. The circular did not entitle managers to directorial grading. The grading and creation of director positions followed rational and prescribed procedures, and no discrimination or irrationality was established.

Citation
[2024] LSHC 229
Parties
1st Applicant: Molikuoa Sekhonyana; 2nd Applicant: Makhauta Masita; 1st Respondent: Principal Secretary – Ministry of Public Service; 2nd Respondent: Principal Secretary – Ministry of Education & Training; 3rd Respondent: Principal Secretary – Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Culture; 4th Respondent: The Public Service Commission; 5th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
13 September 2024
Case Number
CIV/APN/0300/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Decisions, Job Grading, Discrimination, Irrationality
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Employment Law Review of Administrative Decisions Job Grading Discrimination Irrationality

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molikuoa Sekhonyana

1st Applicant

Makhauta Masita

2nd Applicant

Principal Secretary – Ministry of Public Service

1st Respondent

Principal Secretary – Ministry of Education & Training

2nd Respondent

Principal Secretary – Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Culture

3rd Respondent

The Public Service Commission

4th Respondent

The Attorney General

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants were eligible for upgrade from Grade H to Grade J under Circular No.7 of 2013
  2. 2 Whether the decision to regrade applicants to Grade I and not J was discriminatory and irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to establish they were similarly circumstanced as Chief Legal Officers or directors. The circular did not entitle managers to directorial grading. The grading and creation of director positions followed rational and prescribed procedures, and no discrimination or irrationality was established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Each party to bear its own costs