remanded the case to the lower court on the ground that before a matter can be referred it must be determined whether or not it must necessarily be decided. Since this step had not been taken, the question was Legal System of prima facie insubstantial.” (The Lesotho (Virginia : Mitchie) pp. 357-358) The cause of action is that he is facing disciplinary proceedings [44] applicant’s before the tribunal. He complains (in para 12 of the founding affidavit) that those proceedings are flawed, invalid, unconstitutional “completely and outright The nature of the alleged unconstitutionality is illegal”. articulated as follows: I have already read the statements of other potential “12.2 prosecution witnesses who may be called to the disciplinary hearing. I am being called to this disciplinary hearing in order to traverse my defence to these witnesses even before they appear formally before the criminal trial. This is against the constitution and fair hearing/trial. 12.3 I am being exposed to double jeopardy with this disciplinary hearing as at its conclusion I may be dismissed from my employment if I am found guilty. This would be absurd if the criminal trial acquits me. On the other hand, if the criminal court finds me guilty whilst the disciplinary (sic) acquits me, my employer through 1st Respondent will still dismiss me. In short my employer who is a complainant in both the hearing
remanded the case to the lower court on the ground that before a matter can be referred it must be determined whether or not it must necessarily be decided. Since this step had not been taken, the question was prima facie insubstantial.” (The Legal System of Lesotho (Virginia : Mitchie) pp. 357-358) [44] The applicant’s cause of action is that he is facing disciplinary proceedings before the tribunal. He complains (in para 12 of the founding affidavit) that those proceedings are “completely flawed, invalid, unconstitutional and outright illegal”. The nature of the alleged unconstitutionality is articulated as follows: “12.2 I have already read the statements of other potential prosecution witnesses who may be called to the disciplinary hearing. I am being called to this disciplinary hearing in order to traverse my defence to these witnesses even before they appear formally before the criminal trial. This is against the constitution and fair hearing/trial. 12.3 I am being exposed to double jeopardy with this disciplinary hearing as at its conclusion I may be dismissed from my employment if I am found guilty. This would be absurd if the criminal trial acquits me. On the other hand, if the criminal court finds me guilty whilst the disciplinary (sic) acquits me, my employer through 1st Respondent will still dismiss me. In short my employer who is a complainant in both the hearing
PHAILA%20n%20PS%20LOCAL%20GOV%20n%20ORS.docx