Teaching Service Commission and Another v Mokobocho and Another (LC/REV 116 of 12) [2014] LSLC 50 (15 September 2014)

Teaching Service Commission and Another v Mokobocho and Another (LC/REV 116 of 12) [2014] LSLC 50 (15 September 2014)

The court found that the arbitrator did not rely on the excluded pleadings or submissions of the 1st Respondent but rather on the Applicants’ own evidence and pleadings. Although the arbitrator erred in considering a letter of recommendation not forming part of the rescission application record, this irregularity did not affect the outcome as other independent grounds supported the dismissal of the rescission application. The review application was therefore dismissed and the arbitration award reinstated.

Citation
[2014] LSLC 50
Parties
Applicant: Teaching Service Commission; Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Samuel Teboho Mokobocho; Respondent: DDPR
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
15 September 2014
Case Number
LC/REV 116 of 12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed; arbitration award reinstated
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Rescission Application, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
English
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Rescission Application Procedural Irregularity

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teaching Service Commission

Applicant

Attorney General

Applicant

Samuel Teboho Mokobocho

Respondent

DDPR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator improperly relied on excluded pleadings and submissions of the 1st Respondent
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator erred in dismissing the rescission application based on alleged irregularities
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator considered evidence not forming part of the rescission application record

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator did not rely on the excluded pleadings or submissions of the 1st Respondent but rather on the Applicants’ own evidence and pleadings. Although the arbitrator erred in considering a letter of recommendation not forming part of the rescission application record, this irregularity did not affect the outcome as other independent grounds supported the dismissal of the rescission application. The review application was therefore dismissed and the arbitration award reinstated.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; arbitration award reinstated

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed
  • The award in referral A0536/12(b) is reinstated