Relebohile Makhetha
The High Court is set to deliver its judgment next month in a case involving former Lesotho Communications Authority (LCA) CEO, ‘Mamarame Matela, who is accused of failing to return her former employer’s property at the end of her tenure.
Matela is alleged to have withheld several items belonging to the LCA, including a laptop, a 12-inch iPad, an audio recording device, LCA office keys, and an LCA credit card.
The dispute arose after her departure from the LCA in March 2022, when she reportedly did not return the equipment.
The hearing of the main application by the LCA continued in court this week, with lawyers from both parties presenting their arguments.
Notably, Matela has already faced a setback in her attempt to have the case handled by the Directorate of Dispute Prevention and Resolution (DDPR) as a labour dispute. She lost an interlocutory application in August 2022.
In April 2022, the LCA filed an urgent application in the High Court to recover the missing assets. Despite court orders and a sheriff’s visit to Matela’s residence, the items were not retrieved.
Matela’s legal team argued that the matter should be addressed by the DDPR as it concerns an employment-related dispute. They cited the Labour Code Amendment Act, which mandates arbitration in disputes related to employment contracts.
However, the LCA’s legal team countered that the case was not about employment rights but rather the recovery of company property, making it a civil matter within the High Court’s jurisdiction. Presiding Judge, Justice Tšeliso Mokoko, ruled in favor of the LCA, stating that the case did not fall under labour laws but concerned the recovery of LCA assets.
During the hearing of the main application this week, Matela’s defense asserted that the audio recording device was not in her possession. The defense argued that if the device had been in Matela’s possession, the deputy sheriff would have found it during the search of her home.
Challenging a witness’s testimony, who claimed to have seen Matela leaving with a laptop bag, the defense pointed out that this did not necessarily mean there was a laptop inside, as the bag could have contained other items.
LCA’s lawyer, Advocate Qhalehang Letsika, argued that the recording device contained critical minutes from an LCA board meeting, during which corruption-related issues were discussed.
He claimed Matela was aware of the contents of the recorder, as it was in her possession. Letsika also stated that Matela was responsible for the safekeeping of the company property entrusted to her.
The court is scheduled to hand down its judgment on October 31.
