The Labour Court reviewed and set aside the recall of ‘Mampoi Keta, a Third Secretary at Lesotho’s Tokyo mission, after finding that the wrong official chaired her misconduct inquiry, and ordered the disciplinary hearing to start afresh.
THE Labour Court has set aside the decision to recall a Lesotho diplomat from the Tokyo mission, ruling that her misconduct inquiry was chaired by the wrong official and ordering the disciplinary hearing to start afresh.
‘Mampoi Keta, a Third Secretary at Lesotho’s mission in Tokyo, was found guilty of misconduct in April over the overpayment of her own salary and told she would be recommended for demotion. The Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations then recalled her from foreign service with effect from 19 May 2026. Keta brought the recall on review under case number LC/REV/56/2026.
The court reviewed, corrected and set aside the recall and ordered that the disciplinary hearing begin de novo, meaning afresh. It made no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered on 30 June 2026.
| Date | Event |
| 9 Feb 2026 | Suspended pending investigation |
| 3 Mar 2026 | Served with notice of disciplinary hearing |
| 23 Mar 2026 | Disciplinary hearing held |
| 14 Apr 2026 | Found guilty; demotion recommended |
| 19 May 2026 | Recall from Tokyo to take effect (stayed by the court) |
| 30 Jun 2026 | Recall set aside; hearing to restart |
The court found that the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing was appointed contrary to the Codes of Good Practice 2008. Section 8(3)(a) makes it mandatory for a public officer’s inquiry to be chaired by the head of that officer’s section. The hearing was instead chaired by the Deputy Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, an official from a different ministry who was neither Keta’s head of section nor her supervisor.
The Principal Secretary argued that Keta’s head of section, the Ambassador at the Tokyo mission, was conflicted and could not preside. The court found that claim unsupported. The Ambassador had filed no affidavit, the minutes of the hearing recorded no conflict or recusal, and the ministry did not explain how the conflict arose. Where the Code makes the appointment mandatory, the court held, the head of section should have presided and formally recorded any reason for standing down.
“Where the provision is mandatory, the head of section ought to have presided over the matter and then formally noted the reasons for recusal.”
Labour Court, LC/REV/56/2026
The court also found that the recommendation was wrongly routed. The chairperson recommended that Keta repay the money and be demoted from Third Secretary, not that she be dismissed. Under section 8(6) of the Code, a recommendation goes to the head of department only where dismissal is proposed. Handing the demotion recommendation to the Principal Secretary, as head of department, was irregular.
On other grounds the court sided with the ministry. It found no inconsistency in how Keta’s case was handled compared with another officer who had also been overpaid, and declined to consider a challenge to her earlier suspension because she raised it only in reply, months after the suspension took effect.
Keta was represented by Adv T. Lesupi. The respondents, the Principal Secretary and the Attorney General, were represented by Adv T. Mohloki.
The effect of the ruling is that Keta’s disciplinary hearing must be held again from the start. The recall falls away, and the outcome of the first inquiry is undone pending the fresh hearing.
