Parley Loses Appeal With Costs Against Richard
Innocent Selatlhwa | Monday July 10, 2017 15:26
The appeal was dismissed on the point that before appealing a costs order, one must seek leave from the High Court.
The appellants, National Assembly and Attorney General did not do this, thus the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Richard was awarded costs for successfully dismissing the appeal.
The argument lasted for a short while with the appellants conceding that they had not accordingly followed the requisite procedure and attempting but failing to persuade the court that the respondent was not entitled to costs. Yarona Sharp represented the state while Shathani Somolekae represented Richard.
Richard, who was employed as a senior administration officer at the Gaborone Central Constituency, lodged an urgent application through which he sought an interim interdict restraining the appellants from proceeding with a disciplinary hearing against him pending an intended Constitutional challenge to Section 37 (c) of the Public Service Act which prohibits the respondent and similarly circumstanced employees from engaging in active political campaigns.
Following argument of the matter, the appellants were ordered to proceed with the disciplinary hearing and the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
“It will appear on record that the appellants notice and grounds of appeal included that the court a quo erred in holding that it is satisfied that the respondent has established a prima facie right and that the matter was urgent, which ground we do not wish to pursue,” reads the state head of arguments.
Sharp further stated that as a result, the present appeal is brought against the decision of the High Court in refusing the appellants an order of costs on the ground that this matter is ‘borderline’ constitutional therefore were entitled to costs.
She said it was appropriate, therefore, that costs should follow the result and pleaded that the decision of the lower court not to award costs be reversed.
In Richard’s head of arguments they stated; “The respondent will submit that this appeal stands to be dismissed with costs on account of the appellants’ failure to seek leave which even if sought is in any event bound to fail because leave to appeal only against an order of costs in respect of issues that have now become moot is not lightly granted. Further that on the substance, the appeal is itself wholly unmeritorious,” Somolekae stated.
She said in light of the above, this appeal must fail for want or procedural compliance and lack of merit.
The respondent accordingly prays for an order of dismissal with costs.
Richard has through his lawyer Mboki Chilisa filed a notice to sue the National Assembly over his dismissal from work.
Richard who is based in Canada wants an order declaring that it is not contrary to Section 37 (c) of the Public Service Act for persons employed as Senior Administration Officers/Researchers to be engaged in activities of a political nature; Alternatively, an order declaring Section 37(c) of the Public Service Act under which the claimant was dismissed, unconstitutional and striking it down as such; An order declaring that the dismissal of the claimant was therefore unlawful and directing that the claimant be paid all his salaries and emoluments retrospectively from the date of dismissal.