.. appeals against Labour Court contempt ruling sentence
Hopolang Mokhopi
THE Revenue Services Lesotho (RSL) Board has escalated its bid to block the reinstatement of dismissed Commissioner-General, Advocate ’Mathabo Mokoko, by appealing to the Labour Appeal Court against a contempt ruling handed down last month.
The appeal follows a judgment delivered on 17 December 2025 by Labour Court President, Teboho Thoso, who found the entire RSL Board to be in contempt of court for failing to comply with an interim order barring Adv Mokoko’s dismissal without a disciplinary hearing.
The ruling arose from an interlocutory application in which the court was asked to determine whether the Board had deliberately disobeyed an earlier Labour Court order granted on 6 November 2025, a day before Adv Mokoko was dismissed.
Adv Mokoko was fired for alleged incompetence, including failure to resolve mounting tax refund claims and to manage reputational risks.
In his judgment, President Thoso held that the Board had wilfully failed to comply with the court order and warned of serious consequences should the contempt not be remedied.
“The issue for determination is whether the respondents failed to act in accordance with the order of this Court,” Thoso ruled, adding that the respondents “are in contempt and must purge the contempt or face imprisonment for a period to be determined by this Court.”
Aggrieved by the ruling, the RSL Board has now approached the appellate court, arguing that the court a quo erred both in law and in fact.
In its notice of appeal, the Board contends that the Labour Court wrongly concluded that only two preliminary issues were pursued during proceedings, while several other preliminary points of law, which the Board says were critical to the contempt application, were ignored.
“The court misdirected itself in finding that the remaining preliminary issues were abandoned,” the Board argues, insisting that those issues were neither addressed nor lawfully disregarded.
The Board further challenges the court’s finding that it was obliged to comply with draft and unsigned court papers allegedly transmitted via email.
According to the respondents, they were still awaiting a properly filed and served application following a “show cause” letter and could not reasonably be expected to act on informal and unsigned documents.
They also dispute the court’s conclusion that they did not question the existence of a valid court order. The Board maintains that its scepticism was clearly and expressly communicated in writing.
“The disbelief in the existence of the alleged court order was expressly stated in correspondence from the Chairperson of the Board to the applicant,” the notice of appeal states.
The Board is also arguing that personal service of a court order is mandatory in contempt proceedings. The Board argues that notification by email alone was insufficient and could not sustain a finding of wilful and mala fide disobedience.
“Personal service of a court order is substantive and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt,” it argues, adding that none of the Board members was ever personally served with the order in question.
The Board has also taken issue with the sentence imposed, arguing that the Labour Court erred by sentencing them to 30 days’ imprisonment without first establishing all the criminal elements required in contempt proceedings.
“Contempt of court is criminal by nature and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which standard was not met in these proceedings,” the Board argues.
In addition, the Board challenges the order directing Adv Mokoko’s reinstatement, contending that there were material disputes of fact and that the relationship of trust between the parties had irretrievably broken down.
It further argues that, by the time the contempt proceedings were instituted, the termination of Adv Mokoko’s employment had already been fully and lawfully implemented with the approval of the responsible minister, rendering the contempt order moot.
“The termination of employment is an administrative decision which can only be reviewed, not enforced through civil contempt proceedings,” the Board states.
The RSL Board maintains that compliance with the alleged court order was, in any event, impossible and that the Labour Court failed to follow settled jurisprudence requiring proof of personal service, bad faith and wilful disobedience.
