The High Court has refused Peo Mosepele’s application for judicial review of the decision to end her probationary appointment as a Senior Legal Researcher in the Department of Justice and return her to her previous Legal Researcher position.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled on 3 October 2025 that the Secretary General’s decision was open to her on the material available. The court’s role was not to decide whether Mosepele deserved the senior post, but to assess whether the Secretary General had a sufficient basis to conclude that she had failed to meet the probation conditions of satisfactory performance and conduct.
Mosepele received a satisfactory three-month review, followed by unsatisfactory six- and nine-month reviews. Her line manager cited concerns including errors in work, delayed updates, decision-making, staff management and communication. Mosepele disputed many of those claims and argued that she had not been given proper records or a fair opportunity to respond.
A non-statutory Civil Service Appeals Board upheld her appeal and recommended that she be confirmed in the Senior Legal Researcher grade. The recommendation was non-binding. The Secretary General considered the Board’s report alongside the probation assessments, the parties’ appeal submissions and other material, then decided on 5 June 2024 that Mosepele should revert to her previous grade.
The court found that the Secretary General acted reasonably in reaching that decision and rejected Mosepele’s claims of breaches of fair procedures and the duty to give reasons. Justice Bradley noted that the Board’s recommendation did not operate as a binding appeal decision under the statutory probation process.
The judgment records that Mosepele began performing the senior role on 14 August 2023, although the appointment formally commenced earlier. It also notes that the Department faced a deadline to decide the matter before the probation period reached 12 months.
The court refused the reliefs sought by way of judicial review. It adjourned the case to 10 October 2025 for a mention on costs; the judgment does not determine costs.