CIV/T/356/83

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter of :

MOTLATSI
MPOBOLE Plaintiff

v ALPHONSE THESE-TSOEU Defendant

JUDGMENT

Delivered by the Hon. Chief Justice, Mr. Justice

T.S.
Cotran on the 15th day of December,1983

In this action, which was undefended, the plaintiff
claimed from the defendant damages for personal injuries he had
sustained as a
result of an assault on him on the 20th May 1983.

The plaintiff's claim was for M5,000 being general
damages for "assault, shock, pain, suffering, discomfort,
disfigurement, and
loss of certain vital amenities", M80 for
expenses incurred for treatment at a hospital (M20) transport to and
from town to
hospital (M20) and for estimated future medical expenses
(M40).

I propose to allow the special damages of M80 in toto.

I am, however, amazed at the quantum claimed under
general damages. The plaintiff went into the witness box in the
normal way to
enable the Court to make an intelligent assessment
based on the facts. It emerged that both plaintiff and defendant
were fellow
students at the National University of LESOTHO and a
fracas developed, origin unknown, between the defendant on the one
hand, and
another student, which started

/in the

-2-

in the refactory and ended up in the forecourt outside.
The plaintiff was not concerned with this, but noting that that third
student
was receiving undue punishment from the defendant, he
attempted to intervene. The defendant turned upon the plaintiff
himself and
struck him with a knobkerrie several times.

It is not necessary to go into the details of what
happened since the defendant chose not to defend the action because I
have to accept
the plaintiff's evidence that the assault on him was
unjustified, but it is necessary to go into the kind of injuries the
plaintiff
received, the duration of his treatment, and the long term
effects of the injuries. A few days prior to trial I requested an
up-to-date
medical report and X-rays of the skull. The latter
disclosed no damage at all and the plaintiff himself confirms that
to-day he suffers
from nothing except an occasional headache. Well I
suffer from an occasional headache but it would be quite wrong to
attribute this
to a fight I may have had as a student a longtime ago.

The plaintiff was taken to Roma hospital immediately
after the assault. The doctor who examined him noted:

"Lacerations on right forehead and Lacerations to
right eye".

The doctor answered all the questions with a "dash"
but on temporary disability he indicated it "light" and on
permanent disability he indicated it was "nil".

The plaintiff was not admitted as an in-patient but he
testifies that that was at his request because he feared that the
defendant
would follow him to hospital and "finish" him. I
think this was unlikely and the real reason was probably because the
doctor
did not think the injuries serious enough to justify
admission. The plaintiff had five stitches to the forehead and two
or three
under the eye. He attended Roma hospital for dressing the
wounds for 7 days and rested at home for a further 7 days, making his
total
absence from society

/14 days.

-3-

14 days. The only thing that remains from this episode
is a longish scar on the forehead and a very small scar under the
eye. I
have been shown the scars but to describe these as
"disfigurement" is a great exaggeration.

I think those in practice at the bar who advise clients
ought to understand and to explain to those who brief them that
fanciful claims
cannot succeed even though undefended.

I assess general damages at M500 and special damages at
M80 making a total M580. Costs will be awarded to the plaintiff on
the magistrate's
court scale, the forum in which the plaintiff,if
correctly advised, should have sued.

CHIEF JUSTICE 15th December 1983

For Plaintiff : Adv. Addy For Defendant : No Appearance