Thoso v Metropolitan Lesotho (LAC/CIV/A 10 of 2008) [2012] LSLAC 10 (23 February 2012)

Thoso v Metropolitan Lesotho (LAC/CIV/A 10 of 2008) [2012] LSLAC 10 (23 February 2012)

The only issue properly before the Labour Court was whether there was proper service on the respondent as required by law. Regulation 9(c) of the DDPR Regulations does not require that service reach a particular officer, such as the Managing Director. Service was effected by fax and received at the respondent's office. The DDPR did not err in finding service was proper. The Labour Court erred in interfering with the DDPR's discretion, as no reviewable irregularity was disclosed.

Citation
[2012] LSLAC 10
Parties
Appellant: Thabo Thoso; Respondent: Metropolitan Lesotho
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Case Number
LAC/CIV/A 10 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Rescission of Judgment, Review Versus Appeal, Arbitration Award
Source Language
English
Labour Law Service of Process Rescission of Judgment Review Versus Appeal Arbitration Award

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

Parties

Thabo Thoso

Appellant

Metropolitan Lesotho

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was proper service of process on the respondent as required by law
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court erred in interfering with the DDPR's exercise of discretion on rescission

Ratio Decidendi

The only issue properly before the Labour Court was whether there was proper service on the respondent as required by law. Regulation 9(c) of the DDPR Regulations does not require that service reach a particular officer, such as the Managing Director. Service was effected by fax and received at the respondent's office. The DDPR did not err in finding service was proper. The Labour Court erred in interfering with the DDPR's discretion, as no reviewable irregularity was disclosed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Labour Court set aside
  • Application for review dismissed with costs