Thetsane Hardware v Makutsoane and Another (LC/REV 302 of 6) [2009] LSLC 16 (23 September 2009)
The applicant failed to prosecute the review application despite the absence of opposition, indicating loss of interest. The matter was struck off for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] LSLC 16
- Parties
- Applicant: Thetsane Hardware; 1st Respondent: Sehlabaka Makutsoane; 2nd Respondent: DDPR
- Court
- Labour Court
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Case Number
- LC/REV 302 of 6
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment on Application to Review DDPR Award
- Outcome
- application dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Review of Arbitral Award, Unfair Dismissal, Severance Pay, Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement, Want of Prosecution
- 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
Thetsane Hardware
Applicant
Sehlabaka Makutsoane
1st Respondent
DDPR
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Application to Review DDPR Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the review application should be dismissed for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether the applicant lost interest in prosecuting the matter
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to prosecute the review application despite the absence of opposition, indicating loss of interest. The matter was struck off for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- review application struck off
- no order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF LESOTHO LC/REV/302/06 HELD AT MASERU IN THE MATTER BETWEEN THETSANE HARDWARE APPLICANT AND SEHLABAKA MAKUTSOANE DDPR 1ST RESPONDENT 2ND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Date : 18/08/09 Application to review DDPR award – Application struck off for want of prosecution. 1. 2. On the 3rd November 2004, the 2nd respondent ordered the applicant herein to pay to the 1st respondent an amount of M3,722-54. This amount was made up of an order for severance pay in the amount of M1,175-54 and M2,547-00 being three months salary ordered as compensation in lieu of reinstatement for unfair dismissal. The award was made by default as the person sent to represent the applicant was refused permission to represent it. On the 28th January 2005, the company filed the present application seeking an order in the following terms: “(a) Stay of execution of the award in D013/04 “(b) Rescission of the award “(c) Further and or alternative relief. 3. 4. 5. The record was filed as required by the rules. None of the respondents filed opposing affidavits. Accordingly, the application could be presumed unopposed. However, the applicant did nothing to set the matter down for hearing. In the circumstances the Registrar, of her own motion decided to set down the matter for hearing on the 18th August 2009, pursuant to rule 12 of the rules of the Labour Court. It was expected that the set down would elicit some reaction from either of the parties to appear before court and explain their inaction in the matter. On the date of hearing Mr. Mohapi of N. G. Thabane Chambers appeared on behalf of the applicant. He however registered his withdrawal as Counsel for the applicant. No one appeared for the 1st respondent. The Court resolved to strike the matter off as it was apparent that applicant has lost interest by not finalizing the matter despite 1st respondent not opposing it. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed and no order of costs was made. THUS DONE AT MASERU THIS 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009. L. A. LETHOBANE PRESIDENT J. M. TAU MEMBER D. TWALA MEMBER I CONCUR I CONCUR NO APPEARANCE FOR EITHER PARTY 2