Settlement sets aside Maseru market permit refusal for reconsideration, not approval

A settlement provides for setting aside the refusal of Lerato Mofokeng’s market permit application in Maseru solely so that it can be reconsidered. It does not grant the permit. Mofokeng sought to overturn the missing-document refusal and have her payment evidence considered, rather than obtain automatic approval.

The dispute centred on a distinction between paying an application fee and submitting proof of payment. The Market Permit Review Office found no receipt in the paper file it reviewed. Whether the receipt had reached its shared application inbox on time remained unresolved.

The recorded terms provide for the incomplete-application refusal to be set aside solely for reconsideration. They also allow Mofokeng to submit reliable payment evidence within 14 days after execution of the agreement.

Those terms reopen consideration of the application without determining its ultimate outcome. The record contains no monetary settlement amount and no finding that Mofokeng submitted the receipt before the original deadline. It also does not specify an execution date or a deadline for the office to complete reconsideration.

Mofokeng’s requested relief was directed at the refusal and the treatment of her payment evidence. Her position, as recorded, did not ask for the permit to be approved automatically.

The office defended its refusal on the basis that the application was incomplete when the clerk examined the paper file. It maintained that payment and submission were separate matters, while expressing willingness to consider reliable evidence that the receipt reached its application inbox on time.

The office initially sought to deny or materially reduce the requested relief. Its stated settlement preference, however, was reconsideration rather than automatic approval. The agreement adopts that limited route without resolving whether the original file review accounted for all relevant material.

The office received Mofokeng’s application, MP-218. The 5 June 2026 deadline passed before a clerk reviewed the paper file and found no payment receipt. A refusal notice issued on 8 June stated that no receipt was present in the reviewed file.

That notice supports the account of what the paper-file review revealed, but it does not establish whether the shared inbox was checked. The record identifies that unanswered question as a risk to the office’s position and contains no admitted witness testimony resolving it.

The settlement leaves the receipt’s submission history and the permit’s merits open. Its practical effect is narrower: the missing-document refusal will no longer end the application process, and Mofokeng has an opportunity to provide reliable payment evidence for reconsideration.