T & T Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Samuel Peapea (LC 29 of 12) [2013] LSLC 42 (12 August 2013)

T & T Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Samuel Peapea (LC 29 of 12) [2013] LSLC 42 (12 August 2013)

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a set off as an independent claim because set off must be pleaded as a defence to an existing claim, and there was no such claim before the Court. Additionally, there was non-compliance with section 227(5) as the claim had not gone through conciliation.

Citation
[2013] LSLC 42
Parties
Applicant: T & T Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Samuel Peapea
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
12 August 2013
Case Number
LC 29 of 12
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Application / Judgment on Preliminary Objections (jurisdiction)
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Set Off, Labour Disputes, Procedure
Source Language
English
Labour Law Jurisdiction Set Off Labour Disputes Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T & T Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Samuel Peapea

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Application / Judgment on Preliminary Objections (jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim for set off as an independent claim
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction in light of non-compliance with section 227(5) of the Labour Code (Amendment) Act 3 of 2000

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a set off as an independent claim because set off must be pleaded as a defence to an existing claim, and there was no such claim before the Court. Additionally, there was non-compliance with section 227(5) as the claim had not gone through conciliation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
  • No order as to costs