Thabang Jack & 3 Others V Lesotho Revenue Authority & 2 Others (CIV/APN/0105/2022) [2023] LSHC 208 (10 November 2023)

Thabang Jack & 3 Others V Lesotho Revenue Authority & 2 Others (CIV/APN/0105/2022) [2023] LSHC 208 (10 November 2023)

The court found that the applicants' case is based on review of an administrative action by a public functionary, not a labour dispute under the Labour Code, and thus falls within the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The delay in filing was reasonably explained, and there was insufficient evidence that the matter was finally determined elsewhere to bar the application on grounds of res judicata.

Citation
[2023] LSHC 208
Parties
Applicant: Thabang Jack; Applicant: Ntellang Motsamai; Applicant: Matau Mafa; Applicant: Tšepo Ramokone; Respondent: Lesotho Revenue Authority; Respondent: Teboho Mosito; Respondent: Qeeka Chopho
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Case Number
CIV/APN/0105/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Ruling on Points in Limine (jurisdiction, Delay, Res Judicata)
Outcome
The High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter; delay is excused; matter to proceed on merits.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Review of Administrative Action, Delay in Instituting Proceedings, Res Judicata
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Labour Law Jurisdiction Review of Administrative Action Delay in Instituting Proceedings Res Judicata

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabang Jack

Applicant

Ntellang Motsamai

Applicant

Matau Mafa

Applicant

Tšepo Ramokone

Applicant

Lesotho Revenue Authority

Respondent

Teboho Mosito

Respondent

Qeeka Chopho

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review / Ruling on Points in Limine (jurisdiction, Delay, Res Judicata)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the application for review of the decision not to confirm applicants in managerial positions
  2. 2 Whether there was inordinate delay in bringing the application
  3. 3 Whether the matter is res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' case is based on review of an administrative action by a public functionary, not a labour dispute under the Labour Code, and thus falls within the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The delay in filing was reasonably explained, and there was insufficient evidence that the matter was finally determined elsewhere to bar the application on grounds of res judicata.

Court Disposition

The High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter; delay is excused; matter to proceed on merits.

Orders

  • The court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
  • There is a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the review.