Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Lesotho decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Commissioner of Police v Ramphielo (C of A (CIV) 50 of 2019) [2019] LSCA 51 (1 November 2019)
The Court of Appeal held that the Commissioner of Police unlawfully cancelled police promotions and withheld salaries without hearing the affected officers or following the Police Act.
Teaching Service Commission and Others v Makhobalo (C of A (CIV) 2 of 2015) [2015] LSCA 21 (7 August 2015)
On the facts, the respondent failed to tender services or provide any explanation for his prolonged absence, and the employer made efforts to have him return. The right to a hearing was ousted in these circumstances, entitling the employer to withhold salary without affording audi.
Source excerpt
Paseka Raselabe v The Principal Secretary- Ministry of Law and Constitutional Affairs and Another (CIV/APN 441 of 2012) [2013] LSHC 8 (5 February 2013)
The High Court held that the applicant’s salary could not be withheld without a prior hearing or valid disciplinary process under the Public Service Act and Codes.
Moima v Minister of Interior and Others (CIV/APN 293 of 97) [1997] LSHC 78 (23 September 1997)
The applicant's appointment as acting chief was valid and had not been lawfully revoked. The stoppage of his salary without notice or hearing violated the principles of natural justice. Local and central court judgments relied on by respondents did not address chieftainship succession and were without jurisdiction. The applicant was entitled to salary as long as he performed his duties and until due process was followed for any removal.
Source excerpt
Mokabi v Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd (LC 98 of 95) [1995] LSLC 8 (28 July 1995)
The application was not urgent as the applicant's claim related to alleged termination of employment, which should follow normal procedures. The relief sought was not interim but final in nature, and there was no irreparable harm justifying ex parte relief. The respondent must be served and allowed to respond per the Rules.
Source excerpt
Explore more
