Rasekila v Telecom Lesotho (Pty) Ltd and Others (LAC/A 1 of 2013) [2015] LSLAC 4 (8 September 2015)
The Labour Court order was void ab initio as it was not consequent of a proper hearing; the matter must be heard afresh.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] LSLAC 4
- Parties
- Appellant: Thamahane Rasekila; 1st Respondent: Telecom Lesotho (Pty) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: President of the Labour Court; 3rd Respondent: DDPR (Arbitrator Keta)
- Court
- Labour Appeal Court
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Case Number
- LAC/A 1 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal partly succeeds
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Order, Procedural Fairness
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thamahane Rasekila
Appellant
Telecom Lesotho (Pty) Ltd
1st Respondent
President of the Labour Court
2nd Respondent
DDPR (Arbitrator Keta)
3rd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Labour Court order dated 27/09/2011 was valid given lack of formal hearing
Ratio Decidendi
The Labour Court order was void ab initio as it was not consequent of a proper hearing; the matter must be heard afresh.
Court Disposition
appeal partly succeeds
Orders
- Labour Court order dated 27/09/2011 set aside
- Matter remitted to Labour Court to be heard afresh
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 LAC/A/01/2013 IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between THAMAHANE RASEKILA APPELLANT And TELECOM LESOTHO (PTY) LTD PRESIDENT OF THE LABOUR COURT DDPR (ARBITRATOR KETA) 1ST RESPONDENT 2ND RESPONDENT 3RD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT CORAM ASSESSORS : : The Hon. Acting Justice KL Moahloli Mr R. Mothepu Mr S. Kao Date of heard : 8 September 2015 Date of delivered : 8 September 2015 Moahloli AJ (the assessors concurring) [1] When this matter came up for hearing, it emerged from the court’s interaction with the Appellant and 1st Respondent’s counsel that:- (a) There is no record of the proceedings of the court a quo in LC/REV/106/2010 because there was never any formal hearing of the review application by the late President of the Labour Court Mr L. A. Lethobane. (b) Instead on the day in question the President discussed the matter out of court with the parties and they came to some agreement. (c) Consequently the order of court drafted and signed by the registrar on 27/09/2011 was not consequent of a proper hearing of the matter, and is therefore void ab initio. [2] In the premises, it is ordered that:- 1. The appeal partly succeeds. 2. The “order” of the Labour Court (LC/REV/106/2010) dated 27/09/2011 is set aside, and the matter remitted to the Labour Court to be heard afresh. 3. The Labour Court is directed to give the matter priority on its roll. 4. There is no costs order. _____________________________ KL MOAHLOLI, AJ JUDGE OF THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT For Appellant : In person For Respondent : Adv. Ratau