Gov’t defeated in BDF employee qualification dispute
Mpho Mokwape | Wednesday September 3, 2025 09:56
The court bench of Justices Lot Moroka, Leatile Dambe, and Modiri Letsididi struck out the appeal, saying the notice and grounds of appeal were filed without any signature of either appellant or the attorney representing it.
'There was no compliance with the requirements of the rules of court. This court has held in an ever-growing list of case law that an appeal that is filed in violation of the peremptory requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court is not properly before the court and is liable to be struck out,' stated the bench.
The judges explained that any documents filed before the court without following court rules would be struck out without much explanation or compromise.
Meanwhile, the case involved an employee of the BDF, Gosego Polelo, who worked in the electrical and electronics department. In 2015, the employee was sponsored by the government to study for a Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering.
Court records show that after completing his studies, he was promoted to the position of Chief Technical Assistant and received a scarce skill allowance, and in 2017, the BDF asked him to submit his qualifications for evaluation by the Botswana Qualifications Authority (BQA).
'In a meeting held on November 1, 2017, the employee was informed that his Diploma had been downgraded to a Certificate. Despite this, he continued in his position and continued to receive the same salary,' read court documents.
It was reportedly on October 28, 2021, that the BDF informed him that since his qualification had been downgraded, he no longer qualified for the scarce skill allowance and was being re-designated to his former position of Senior Technical Officer, giving rise to a dispute over his qualifications.
Polelo challenged this decision in the High Court, and the court ruled in his favour, leaving the government dissatisfied with the ruling, and it filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal.
According to the court, the employee raised a legal objection, saying that the appeal was not properly filed because the notice and grounds of appeal were not signed when submitted to the High Court, as required by Rule 17 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
'The notice and grounds of appeal were received by the Maun High Court on March 3, 2023, but were not signed. The documents were only signed on April 3, 2023, after they had already been filed. Rule 17 requires that such documents must be signed by the appellant or their legal representative when they are filed,' according to court records.
Subsequently, after the bench struck out the appeal, it ordered the government to pay the legal costs of the employee.