1 Introduction
The recent judgment of the High Court of Lesotho in Matsoso v Principal Secretary Ministry of Public Service and Others [2025] LSHC 153 Civ (delivered 4 August 2025) presents a timely opportunity to interrogate the jurisdictional limits between the High Court and the Labour Court in public service employment disputes. The matter concerned the applicant’s challenge to her involuntary transfer within the public service, and the legal question was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to review such a transfer in light of the Labour Act No. 3 of 2024.
2 Factual Matrix and Procedural Posture
The applicant, a Labour Commissioner in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, was notified on 22 May 2024 by the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Public Service that she would be transferred to the Ministry of Energy as Director of Legal Affairs. Alleging procedural irregularities and irrationality, the applicant launched review proceedings in the High Court. In response, the respondents raised a point in limine contesting the Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Labour Act, 2024 vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Labour Court.
3 Legal Framework and the Contest of Jurisdiction
Section 119(1) of the Constitution of Lesotho, 1993 vests the High Court with unlimited original jurisdiction, including in matters of judicial review. However, the preamble and operative provisions of the Labour Act, 2024 radically alter the jurisdictional architecture applicable to employment disputes. Specifically:
- Section 43(1)(c)(ii) provides for the regulation of public sector employment.
- Section 50(2)(j) states that the Labour Court shall have jurisdiction over “any other labour law”.
- Section 51(1)(c) confers exclusive review jurisdiction on the Labour Court in relation to employment disputes.
The applicant argued that the impugned decision fell under administrative law and not “labour law” and was therefore subject to review under section 119(1) of the Constitution. The Crown, in contrast, submitted that the matter was squarely governed by the Public Service Act, 2005 and its Regulations, which are employment laws falling within the ambit of the Labour Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.
4 The Court’s Reasoning
The High Court, per Sakoane CJ, upheld the jurisdictional objection and dismissed the application. It reasoned as follows:
- The power to transfer a public officer is an incident of the employment relationship and is regulated by labour legislation.
- The Labour Act, 2024 harmonises the private and public employment law regimes and repeals the Labour Code Order, 1992.
- The Labour Court now holds exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate all employment disputes, including those involving public officers, under section 50(2)(j) and 51(1)(c) of the Act.
- Although the Constitution grants the High Court inherent review powers, Parliament may allocate such jurisdiction to specialist tribunals where appropriate. In labour matters, that jurisdiction has now been vested in the Labour Court.
The judgment drew upon comparative reasoning and jurisprudence from Baloyi v Public Protector 2021 (2) BCLR 101 (CC) and Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau 2014 (8) BCLR 930 (CC), emphasising that the determination of jurisdiction must be guided by the pleadings and the nature of the relief sought.
5 Implications of the Decision
This decision affirms the primacy of the Labour Court in all employment-related disputes under Lesotho’s current legal framework. It eliminates the historical ambiguity under the Labour Code Order, 1992, which had permitted concurrent jurisdiction between the High Court and Labour Court in certain matters involving public servants. The case marks a significant realignment of institutional competence in Lesotho’s employment law and reinforces the specialisation of the Labour Court.
The Court’s rejection of the applicant’s reliance on administrative law principles to circumvent the statutory jurisdiction of the Labour Court illustrates a clear intention to prevent forum shopping. Moreover, it signals that actions such as transfers, although administrative in form, are functionally labour matters when embedded within the employment relationship.
6 Conclusion
The judgment in Matsoso conclusively settles the jurisdictional controversy surrounding public servant transfers. It affirms that review of such decisions lies exclusively with the Labour Court under the Labour Act, 2024. The High Court’s supervisory powers under the Constitution are not ousted but are redirected: where employment law provides a remedy, that remedy must be pursued within the designated labour forum.
This case serves as a critical precedent and a cautionary tale for practitioners litigating employment matters in Lesotho: understanding jurisdiction is no longer merely procedural, it is determinative.