IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter
CANDI RATABANE RAMAINOANE 1st Defendant
COMMUNICATIONS(PTY)LTD 2nd Defendant
Delivered by the Hon. Mr Justice M.L. Lehohla on the
22nd day of December 1999
The plaintiff sues the above-named defendants for:
Payment of ninety thousand maluti (90 000-00) damages;
Interest at the rate of 18.5% per annum a tempore
Costs of suit
Further and/or alternative relief.
It is common cause that the 1st defendant is
the editor of a newspaper called MOAFRIKA whose offices at the time
of the drafting of the plaintiffs declaration were
at Fairways Centre
It is also common cause that the 2nd
defendant is a company duly registered as such and having, at the
time referred to above, its offices at Fairways Centre Maseru.
The defendants admit that the cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction of this Court.
The 1St defendant denies being the author of
"MOAFRIKA" newspaper though no such suggestion was made in
the plaintiff's declaration
to which the 1st defendant
purportedly proffers this reply. However he emphatically denies being
the author of an Article appearing in "MOAFRJKA"
Newspaper's Vol.5 No:34 dated 13th September 1996 entitled
"LITSITSO TSA SHAKHANE" according as reflected in the
Declaration whereas the Article proper as
reflected in "Exh.B"
that was handed in by the plaintiff is entitled "LITSITISO TSA
SHAKHANE" meaning - SHAKHANE'S
HINDRANCES as against the other
title which obviously has a typographical error which affects the
translation thereof to the extent
that it could be rendered as
It is however common cause according to pleadings that
the 2nd defendant is the proprietor of "MOAFRIKA"
Newspaper, and that this newspaper is widely circulated and read by
throughout the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Republic of South
Africa and other countries in Southern Africa.
The contents of paragraph 8 of the plaintiff's
declaration are hotly denied and the plaintiff is challenged to
furnish proof thereof.
The 1st defendant specifically
denies ever writing the article complained of and requires the
plaintiff to furnish proof of his allegations.
In his allegations set out in the article in question
the plaintiff states :
"In the issue of 13th September 1996 the
1st defendant wrongfully and unlawfully wrote and
published the following defamatory matters concerning or about the
fair translation of the words from Sesotho into
English is rendered as follows]:
'The Treasurer did not have proof of the collection and
the party's funds It was visibly (sic) that Shakhane
using these funds with Moeketsi Sello because Moeketsi
was seen to have amassed property which exceeded his means as a
healer It was found that Shakhane and Moeketsi gave
bribery to Botswana Police who had arrested them for unlawfully
trading in diamonds
in 1980.... The Commander of (LLA) were (sic)
arrested in Qoaqoa, it is apparent that the South African Police had
been told about
them by one trator (sic) The letters and photograph
of Lefatle indicates that the source was the sons of Sello '"
A copy of that Article was annexed and marked "MS
1" when filed together with the summons. A similar copy was
by the plaintiff during proceedings and marked Exh "B".
It is significant that the contents of this article were
repeated in a subsequent issue of MOAFRIKA in Volume 13 of the 7th
February 1997 in reaction to the lawsuit that the plaintiff
instituted against the defendants. The particular issue was handed in
during the course of the plaintiff's evidence-in-chief and marked Exh
In response to charges emanating from Exh "B"
the 1St defendant states at paragraph 4.2 that
" Had the Article complained of been printed in
full the full text
thereof would show that the Article is not defamatory.
4.3 First defendant avers that the article complained of
is true and it was for the public interest.
First Defendant avers that the statement complained of
is but a fair comment.
First Defendant avers that for the mere fact (sic) the
author of the said Article has pointed out that he quotes from a
book, which circulated widely, by his conduct of doing
nothing about the said publication he accepted the facts as true and
consented to their reproduction.
First Defendant avers that Plaintiff by not exercising
his right under the Constitution has thereby forfeited any cause of
against the Defendants".
In paragraph 9 the plaintiff states that the words
appearing in the Summons are defamatory per se or at least in the
context in which
they were published. The plaintiff elaborates that
these words were read and understood by the readers of the said
newspaper as concerning
and/or as being about plaintiff.
In response the defendants in paragraph 5 of the
Defendants (sic) plea admit that the article was published by the
concerning the plaintiff but deny the rest of the
statements made by the plaintiff who is put to proof thereof.
The plaintiff further asserts in paragraphs 10 and 11 of
his declaration that the MOAFRIKA issue in question was widely
like others as shown above. He indicates that it was read
by several people who held the plaintiff in high esteem and
who have thus understood the words to mean inter alia
that plaintiff is a dishonest person who has illicitly enriched
of the (BCP) Party's funds, a criminal who bribes police
and a sell-out who gave information to the enemy concerning the
of LLA leadership and as such a person with perverse and
degenerate understanding of moral values.
Finally the plaintiff asserts that the publication of
this Article has greatly impaired his dignitas and fame. In the
result he says
he has suffered damages in the sum of M90 000-00 for
which he holds the defendants jointly and severally liable.
The defendants' simple and unqualified reaction to all
this is that contents of these paragraphs are denied and plaintiff is
the proof thereof, and pray that the plaintiffs claim be
dismissed with costs.
It is to be realised that the pleading especially by the
1st defendant advances a rather novel concept in law to
the extent that it implies that even if the publication is shown to
then the Editor because he is not the author is
entitled to be freed from liability.
Another aspect of pleadings which appears to smack of
inconsistency is that the defendants should admit as they did that
"MOAFRIKA" Newspaper enjoys wide readership
in Lesotho, South Africa and southern Africa and in the same breath
bare denial of this very assertion when repeated by the
plaintiff in paragraph 10 without qualification in regard to
of defamatory aspects of the matter set out by the
plaintiff and consequent injury occasioned to his dinitas by
publication of the
defamatory matter pointed out. In this regard a
criticism is legitimate that the defendants seem to be blowing hot
The plaintiff testified under oath and narrated a simple
story that he is a traditional doctor. Further that before 1996 he
in Botswana as a refugee and practicing his medicine in
that country and in other southern African countries as a way of
The plaintiff testified that presently he is a Member of
Parliament and belongs to Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD).
While in Botswana he was a member of the Basutoland
Congress Party (BCP)
had been forced into exile by hostile political climate back home in
The plaintiff said he came to Lesotho in 1995 when
bringing for burial the remains of his wife who had died in exile.
The plaintiff seems to have been doing fairly well in
his practice as a traditional doctor because it was while he was in
that he was able to donate vehicles to the leadership of the
BCP as a contribution to their struggle against the then regime in
Indeed the plaintiff has handed in Exh "C" a
letter dated 25-11-1977 signed by the then Secretary General of the
Mphanya thanking the plaintiff for his generous
contribution. The letter was written from the BCP office in Lusaka
The plaintiff testified that it was when he was back in
Botswana in 1996 having resumed normal life with the rest of his
family members that someone brought to his attention
contents of Exh "B". The plaintiff testified that though
is written in Sesotho many people read the Newspaper in
which it is published in Botswana. He said the paper has a wide
in that country. He said some people receive it monthly
He told the Court that this Article affects him
painfully for it says
" The paper says Shakhane was mishandling BCP funds
that it seemed he was misappropriating them for his and
for Moeketsi Sello's own good. It is said I was involved in the
of those BCP funds". See page 4 of Courts
The plaintiff denies any involvement in the
misappropriation of BCP funds while he was in Botswana. He goes
further to show that as
he was working he was able to financially
sustain BCP members who were there; finding them in food and
clothing. Thus no how could
he have had the urge to help himself
unlawfully to the BCP funds.
He highlighted the fact that the publication caused him
great pain when it alleged that he was involved in illicit diamond
as a result of which he and Shakhane were arrested whereupon
the plaintiff bribed the Botswana police. He asserts that he never
in any diamond sales. He does not even know diamonds. He denies
ever being arrested by Botswana Police as a result of illicit diamond
dealing. In fact he asserts that he has never been arrested in
connection with anything from birth. This indeed is a telling record
of leading a clean life when account is taken of the fact that PW1
testifies that he is 64 years of age.
It was during his firm denials of any involvement with
things alleged in this publication that the Court observed tears
his eyes and therefore ordered a short adjournment for
the witness to resume his earlier composure.
After the witness had resumed his composure he said : "I
am 64 years old. I was never arrested in all these years.
I don't get easily touched [emotionally] but today I saw
the man who wrote the article and I got moved to tears".
The atmosphere generated by this scene and the spectacle
that was then discernable are factors which could never be lost to
attention. True enough PW1 may not be accurate referring
to the 1st defendant as the one who wrote the article, but
it is ultimately a legal question who is to be held liable for
publication of defamatory
matter whose author is undisclosed.
PW1 denied that he acted as a stool pigeon for purposes
of entrapping the Military wing of his colleagues who were en route
to Qwaqwa and ensuring that they were caught napping by
the South African police.
The plaintiff said as a result of this publication many
people including very important people such as Chief Masupha Seeiso
him with the newspaper article while others shunned him. He
felt very hurt and was unable to venture out. He felt withdrawn and
He shunned public appearances. The plaintiff indicated
that before then he used to feel happy and enjoy people crowding
whenever he stopped in Maseru or South Africa because of
the good he did. They used to crowd around him in appreciation of his
deeds towards them.
He said the above picture contrasted sharply with
subsequent attitude of people towards him because "after
publication even someone
who is used to me would just raise his hand
and say hello and pass off'. See page 8 of the Courts manuscript.
The plaintiff said he is aggrieved that the allegations
made in that Article associate him with someone who is said to have
M55. Million Maluti gambling.
The plaintiff denounced the alternative pleas by the
defendants that the contents of the Article were true or
alternatively in the
public interest or alternatively that they were
a fair comment.
It is important to note that the Article in Exh "B"
is written by someone who calls himself "Oa Mohlakeng". The
plaintiff testified that his efforts and indeed those of his Counsel
to identify this character were foiled.
Exh "A" a letter handed in evidence by the
plaintiff and written by his Counsel bears testimony to their
efforts. I wish
to refer to it in full :
1st Floor Mohlaka House
P.O. Box 036
Maseru West 105
16th October 1996 The Editor MOAFRIKA
FAIRWAYS CENTRE Maseru
re: Defamatory Article in your issue of the 13th
September 1996. Mr Moeketsi Sello.
We are the legal representatives of Mr Moeketsi Sello
who has instructed us to sue on the Article above.
We thus require you to disclose the full names and
address of the author of the Article appearing in your said issue and
LITSITISO TSA SHAKHANE.
You are required to furnish this information within 7
days hereof failing which we shall have no option but to sue you and
signed : S. Phafane Chambers"
I believe the plaintiff's testimony that his counsel's
request was unrequited. Instead what amounted to cocking a snook at
appeared in the MOAFRIKA issue of 7th
February 1997 Exh "D" under the heading"
"Moeketsi Sello sues MOAFRIKA he wants M90 000-00
As stated above this Article repeated by way of
reference to the paragraphs complained of, what was written by "Oa
in Exh "B".
The Article in Exh "D" makes game of the fact
that the plaintiff never bothered to sue the writers of the book
the Struggle for Azania Exh "E" (handed in
later by 1st defendant in his evidence) yet it appeared,
so the 1st defendant maintained in his evidence, that this
book was sold right here in Lesotho. It would require little
imagination and effort
to conclude that the 1st defendant
fully associated himself with contents of Exh "D" which are
in any case to the same effect. The contents go further
to issue what
amount to threats or intimidation to the plaintiff in the sense that
the Article in Exh "D" after stating
that the plaintiff
sues defendants over trifles the defendants would claim swinging
costs in respect of cases that the defendants
are going to win. It is
significant that the defendants allow for no possibility that they
might lose the so-called cases that they
threaten to institute
against the plaintiff for damages. One senses even at this early
stage, a high degree
of presumptuousness founded on a culture of impunity and
untouchability which are unmistakable in all this boast he holds the
concerns and hurt to ridicule. Indeed under
cross-examination of the 1st defendant by Mr Phafane the
latter, no doubt appreciating the arrogance contained in the above
statement sought to water it down
by saying damages would only be
awarded if the defendants won the case. But Counsel was swift to
point out to the 1st defendant that nowhere is the word
"if suggested even remotely for the text refers to "cases
that we are going to win".
Accordingly the 1st
defendant backed down after this sobering realisation of the true
meaning of what is in the unerring text of Exh "D".
It is important to note that the plaintiff stated under
oath that he didn't know of the Works of Leeman the author of Exh
He had never heard of Leeman or his works. He only
came to know of allegations which defamed him in Article B whereupon
proceedings against the Newspaper and its Editor after
being vouchsafed no reply to his effort to seek from those two the
of the writer of the Article in question.
PW1 was cross-examined. But the cross-examination as
indicated in the Ruling on Application for Absolution from the
down on 7th June 1999 was devoted to
matters which were not contained in the plaintiff's summons.
At that stage of proceedings this court observed
that "evidence has shown that
none of the material complained of as material published
in MOAFRIKA has beenput to the plaintiff as having been put to
the plaintiff as extracts obtained byMOAFRIKA from Leeman's
Works ". See page 3 of the said Ruling.
It was only when the 1st defendant was being
led in his statement given on Affirmation that for the first time the
extracts from MOAFRIKA appearing in the
summons were pointed out in
Leeman's Works and DW1 the 1st defendant was asked by his
Counsel to comment on them. I would hasten to say the Court was
denied the opportunity to see the plaintiff's
reaction to these
statements which then tended to have a bearing on him, or as
maintained by the defence affected his case adversely.
Maisels P in Phaloane vs Rex 1981(2) LLR 246 at p 252
makes salutary reference to Small vs Small 1954(3) SA 434 where
Classen J neatly
"It is, in my opinion, elementary and standard
practice for a party to put to each opposing witness so much of his
own case of
defence as concerns that witness, and if need be, to
inform him, if he has not been given notice thereof, that other
contradict him, so as to give him fair warning and an
opportunity of explaining the contradiction and defending his own
It is grossly unfair and improper to let a witness's
evidence go unchallenged in cross-examination and afterwards argue
that he must
Needless to say and no doubt after the Court had made
its adverse comments in the Ruling on this issue was it deemed
lead the defendant on specific pages in Leeman's Works
where Articles complained of in MOAFRIKA were said to emanate. This
way can help fill in the gap created by letting the plaintiff
go without having been tackled on relevant material related thereto.
In his evidence the 1st defendant admits
publication complained of both in the pleadings as earlier indicated
and in oral evidence.
He stated that his function as Editor is to see to it
that news coming into his Newspaper is correct. He stated that he is
of the team of MOAFRIKA Newspaper.
He highlighted the fact that the article complained of
was not written by him but by one "Oa Mohlakeng". He
why the plaintiff sues him in his personal capacity
when in fact matters perceived as defamatory relate not to the
The 1st defendant said that when the Article
came to his attention he made investigations as to the truth of its
contents. He found that
the contents were true as they were extracts
or quotations from the Works of Leeman. He says the steps he took
were to verify if
there is such as a book as Lesotho and the Struggle
for Azania by Leeman. He managed to get hold of it and read it. He
got it from
people who had it and found that the news emanated from
He referred to portions in that book one of which is at
page 81 where reference is made to the fact that the plaintiff became
prosperous. It is reflected that his success is attributable
to his prowess as a herbalist. But that the big house, the funds to
buy a minibus and business that he suddenly had were out of all
proportion with what he had previously. Further that as an elderly
semi-illiterate Moeketsi seemed not able to control the finances.
With regard to allegations in the summons saying
Shakhane and Moeketsi the plaintiff gave bribery to Botswana police,
DW1 ran the
relevant portion to earth in the same book at page 81.
Indeed the reference to a traitor who led the armed wing of BCP -
their ill-fate is made there too.
The 1st defendant stated that when he caused
the article to be published he had no intention to defame the
plaintiff. Moreover he had been
referred to this book by then leader
of the BCP Ntsu Mokhehle himself. He learned of this Book in 1989 he
The book was handed in marked Exh "E".
Under cross-examination DW1's version was typified by
evasiveness and inclination to fence with questions. For instance :
"This that you call Leeman's Book is a photo-copy.
Is that correct
? It is correct.
Have you the original text ? Mine burnt last year.
Meaning you don't ? I can make it available though not
Please give me straight answers. This is your Exhibit ?
You opted to rely on this photocopy ? I relied on the
Court had to intervene before he could reply "yes".
Referred to a suggestion that the book is said to have
been published by the University of Azania and asked if he knew any
he said amongother things. " I don't
know all Universities.
I take it that you can't dispute that there is no such
University ? Thats your opinion".
I merely refer to the above examples as a prelude to the
time wasted by DW1 in his avoidance to give straight answers to
The Court warned him time and again about adverse
inferences that courts of law are apt to draw against witnesses who
his particular brand of attitude.
Indeed a fairly legitimate question following from his
evidence in chief was that:
"If I understood you correctly up till August 1996
you didn't know
there was such a Book hence you went to verify ? I knew
DW1 insisted that he knew of this book before he
received Exh "B" yet the record of proceedings reveals him
as having said
after receiving this "letter Exh "B" "I
wanted to find out if there was such a book". Having admitted
he was correctly recorded it escapes me then how he could have
gone to verify the existence of such a book years before 1996 when
fact he only came to be alerted to its existence by Exh "B"
which he received in 1996; whereupon he sought to establish
Mr Phafane's pursuit pursuit of this aspect of the
matter was logical and the precise moment he sought to step off it
had done enough
damage to DW1's fortifications saying nothing of his
Learned Counsel said in putting his questions to the
"Isn't it then obvious that up until you got that
Article you didn't know
of such a book ? What is true is that I had known of the
of such a book. What I was trying to do was to compare.
But how could you go to look to find out if there was
such a book if you knew
of its existence. Is there sense in that ? (Court
observed signs of
discomfort from the witness here)"
Learned Counsel was quick to seek to simplify the
question which was indeed very simple and said :
"Up till receiving Exh "B" you hadn't
seen this Book ? I had already
You had ? I had.
Yet you are recorded as having said 'I wanted to find
out if there was such a Book after receiving Article "B".
I leave it at that. Are you serious ? I am".
On the evidence before Court and due weight being
accorded to what is
credible in it, it is inescapable to conclude that DW1
could not have known of the existence of Exh "E" before he
Exh "B" in 1996. The Court regarded with amazement
the 1st defendants failure to appreciate that the
hear-says that he sought to rely on are valueless and therefore play
no part in Court proceedings.
Time and again this was brought to his
attention and at some stage he appeared to appreciate it.
The 1st defendant indicated that it is not
standard practice to take trouble to ascertain people who submit
articles for publication. But
I must hasten to indicate
that the answer was not a direct response to what the
cross-examiner wanted to get from him. The question had simply been
if the witness
takes such trouble. In typical fashion when asked if
he did ascertain who "Oa Mohlakeng" was he said he didn't
see "Oa Mohlakeng's" face.
However he said he knew the latter's names and surname
though he declined to give them when asked so to do. DW1 was referred
"A". He admitted receiving that letter i.e. letter
from the plaintiff's Counsel. Told that he didn't reply to this
or respond to the request contained in it, he said he thought
he did give particulars requested and concluded that " in other
words I did reply".
Then it was put to him that the plaintiff who gave
evidence in his presence before Court said the letter had not been
replied to and
that on this aspect of the matter nothing was
preferred from the defence side to gainsay that piece of damning
evidence. His response
to this fact was that he couldn't recall well.
He admitted though that had he replied, his answer would
be as stated in Exh "D", namely that he couldn't disclose
writer was. He went further to say he is prepared to take
full responsibility for the suit made as a result of the publication
sought to water down and explain that by saying that he meant
since he came to an agreement with the author of the article not to
disclose his name he would take the responsibility for publishing it.
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff was not to be easily
fobbed off by any such tactics the purpose of which was to avoid the
Thus Mr Phafane very aptly brought to DW1's attention and
reading from the Article in Exh "D" the following phrases :
"You go further in that Article to say you are
going to claim
costs from plaintiff. ? Yes.
Because according to you you were going to win this
case ? Yes Sir;
but where I am reading it says when I have won not that
I have won the case.
I'll read in Sesotho the last sentence saying 'we shall
indeed do so (claim costs) when we have won these cases that we are
Having read what is written there are you now going to
change yourevidence ? I accept what is written here.
Good. You made this publication when this case was
pending before hisLordship ? Yes."
After fencing with the question by seeking refuge behind
what he repeatedly referred to as professional ethics DW1 eventually
that because of the stance he took he was to take the
consequences. His crisp answer was "It is my unfortunate duty"
page 49 of the Courts manuscript.
The 1st defendant furnished the information
that the 2nd defendant, i.e. C.R. Communications is the
name of the Company publishing "MOAFRIKA" Newspaper. Its
directors are the 1st defendant himself, 'Maphakiso
Mphaololi(a woman) and the 1st defendants wife 'Matabane
Ramainoane. He stated that this company does not own any property.
The 1st defendant conceded that the Article
in Exh "B" was written in Sesotho for purposes of directing
attention, in as far as
those who had not known or read Leeman's
Works, to the material published therein. Though not in so many words
he conceded also that
the other purpose was so as to revive the
recollection of those who had read Leeman's Works but due to lapse of
time their memories
of the contents thereof had faded. Again he was
hard put to it to provide any more meaningful
answer than that the other purpose appears to have been
so as to induce persons who had not read Leeman's book to acquaint
with the contents of the publication. His brief response
to this was "the author said so".
Then came the crunch.
"By publishing this article you helped to
accomplish this purpose....? Because I am permitted by the
Constitution of this Country".
I may just say in passing that it would lead to the
highest form of anarchy if the Constitution of this Country provided
for any such
thing as DW1 suggests. No wonder in addresses Mr Khauoe
better of advancing any submission based on this grotesquery and
himself with saying that whether wrongly or rightly,
the fact is that the 1st defendant believes this to be the
case. 1 may dismiss this submission as clearly made with tongue in
The section relied on in this regard is s.14(4) of the
Constitution reading :
"Any person who feels aggrieved by statements or
ideas disseminated to the public in general by a medium of
the right to
reply or to require a correction to be made using the
same medium, under such conditions as the law may establish".
Clearly nothing in this provision imposes a duty on the
offended party to bow down, so to speak, in the house of Rimmon.
DW1 was taxed on whether he knew it for a fact that PW1
was involved in illicit diamond dealing and he stated that he knew
He just read it in the newspaper.
Instead of finding out, before publishing this Article,
if the story was true he contented himself with the fact that "Oa
story emanated from Leeman's book. It appears to me
that he didn't find it his duty to go further and verify the
correctness of the
contents of this article. DW1 was thus placed in a
cleft stick when reminded of the fact that PW1 said those things
him in Exh "B" were false and that indeed PW1
was not challenged with DW1's version, if any or at all, that PW1's
is itself false. Again when this deliberate omission was
pointed out to him DW1 finding himself in an awkward position where
story that is inconsistent with the plaintiffs was not put to the
plaintiff, he found himself with
no option but to say "I am not certain on that".
What is certain is that because his version here runs counter to the
dictum outlined in Small vs Small above it must be rejected
on the score of absurdity.
An attempt by Mr Phafane to lift DW1 out of his
predicament failed. Learned Counsel had suggested to DW1 that it was
never in the
first place DW1's case that allegations against
plaintiff were true, that is why Mr Khauoe didn't tax PW1 about
them. DW1 said that
this in fact is his case and repeated his
surprise at plaintiff suing him about matters relating to Shakhane
Mokhehle. See page 55
of Courts manuscript. When this suggestion was
repeated DW1 responded by saying may be they (allegations) are true
for they were
written by Leeman.
The 1st defendants miscomprehension of what
the case is about deepened despite the cross-examiner's patience to
make him appreciate what
is in issue.
"You said this morning you don't know if what is
published is true orfalse ? I said one who knows is Leeman.
This is consistent with the fact that it was never put
to plaintiff that theallegations about him are true ? Yes.
Because 1 am not Leeman.
Your defence is that the one who knows is the writer of
the book Leeman ? True.
You as defendant are in no position to contradict
plaintiff when he says theyare false ? I contradict him.
Your only reason for saying so is that he didn't
challenge Leeman ?
It was immediately after the 1st defendant
gave his penultimate answer immediately above that this Court
observing that he had been dodging giving straight answers,
feeling that surely he couldn't have cast caution to the wind to the
extent that he was tempted to give such an answer that it
15 minutes' break to mull over it when he expressed a desire to
marshal his thoughts.
One of the vital aspects of this case relates to the
question whether the alleged statements written by "Oa
statements of fact or opinions. The 1stdefendant said he understood them as stating facts as extracted
by "Oa Mohlakeng" from Leeman's Works.
He admitted participating in the publication of these
facts. See page 57 of Courts manuscript. It would be fruitful in due
to refer to Prof. R.G. Mackeron's Book entitled The Law of
DW1 was taken to task by Mr Phafaane with regard to
DW1's claim that PW1 had become aware of the book whose author he
He was asked when actually PW1 became so aware. He
replied that this was the case when Ntsu Mokhehle himself became
aware of it.
The next logical question was whether the 1stdefendant was living with the plaintiff. He replied "No".
The purport of this question which to my mind the 1st
defendant failed to comprehend was whether he had first-hand
knowledge of his claim. The disarming response to a further question
in this line revealed the baselessness of his claim.
He was thus asked :
"Who brought it to his (plaintiffs) attention if
anybody at all ?Ntsu Mokhehle.
On what date ? I don't know.
Were you present ? I was absent.
Who told you the late Mokhehle told him ? My
understanding in view
of the evidence he gave".
Needless to say there is nothing in the evidence that
PW1 gave from which it could even remotely be suggested he obtained
information from the late Ntsu Mokhehle as claimed by the
1st defendant. I may, while at this, hark back to the
other claim that the 1st defendant got to know of the
existence of Leeman's works from Ntsu Mokhehle and, bring attention
to bear on the fact that authorities
are clear on claims made by
litigants about uncorroborated statements made by dead people who
cannot be summoned to testify to the
truthfulness of such claims.
Be that as it may the long deferred answer was
eventually given in the next text set out immediately below :
"The nett effect of your evidence is that you don't
know if Sello [the
plaintiff] knows of publication of this book ? I
I put it to you he is not aware of this publication by
Leeman ? I can't
say that he now knows".
The 1st defendant was taken to task regarding
his startling proposition that the plaintiff did not approach him
regarding "Oa Mohlakeng's"
Article. He persisted in this
view. Asked if the plaintiff was bound to do so he replied "The
Constitution is his right"
asked further "Does the
Constitution say he is bound to come to you in such
circumstances ? (the answer was incomprehensible. What
was obvious was
that 1st defendant lacked basic understanding
of the distinction between right and duty. But this would not be
surprising in view of the fact
that a good many students of law
stumble on this rather crafty and mischievous pons asinorum.)
Accordingly the Court intervened in part with a view to
impressing on the cross-examiner the futility of asking a layman a
which goes to the root of jurisprudence. Indeed happily the
learned counsel appreciated this.
In its intervention the Court asked :
Ct: "But do you understand the distinction
between right and duty ?
Right is what you are bound to do. Duty is what you do
from day to day.
"No. You got your lines crossed there. Right is
what you may do if you like. Duty is what you do whether you like it
Then did he have
to come to you whether he liked it or not ? He had. Or
send his lawyer".
Thus with the sort of misapprehension of the simple
explanation made for his benefit saying nothing of the subtlety of
concept it can scarcely be surprising that the 1st
defendants train should thus leave the metals.
Needless to say further attempts by Mr Phafane to make
simple examples of what is implied in either of these two concepts
comical answers. For instance :
"It is your right to join a political party of your
Are you obliged to join apolitical party ? Yes if I like
If you don't join are there any sanctions ? No one can
punish you but
you will be in the dark".
I can dismiss this aspect of the matter by indicating
that a right is what the holder thereof can enforce against another
while a duty is what one is obliged to do or forbear from
doing on pain of undergoing some penalty in the event of failure. It
be clear therefore that the Constitution does not impose a duty
anybody claiming that he has been defamed to go
virtually cap in hand to the culprit to seek to know why and
Thus the 1st defendant was clearly in a cleft
stick when it was put to him by learned Counsel Mr Phafane that
"Constitution of this Country
does not deprive the plaintiff of
his right to sue you if you say that he didn't come to you".
Cross-examination revealed that for well over two years
that have passed since this suit was launched the 1st
defendant never published an apology to the plaintiff. His reason
being that the plaintiff never asked for any apology. It also
that the 1st defendant never approached the plaintiff to
find his side of the story. Further that MOAFRIKA Newspaper is read
and thousands of people.
Coming now to the matter of vital importance that I
referred to earlier hinged on Small vs Small I wish to cite the text
as it indeed helps make the picture handsomely clear.
"In your evidence you referred to page 81
extensively ? If
it is the page containing "Oa Mohlakeng's"
Article thats correct.
Then you heard plaintiff give evidence ? Yes.
You heard your case being put to him ? Yes. But I was
not in Court
when he was asked certain portions of his evidence.
Had you caused part of the evidence referred to in
Leeman to be put to him ? I don't know Court procedure.
You do so by giving all I the information regarding your
defence to your counsel ? I did put all the facts of the case to
Saying so you are surprised that this important part of
your case was not put to
plaintiff ? I said when I put my case to my lawyer he
procedure and he is the one to put my case correctly.
You expect him to put your side's story ? If that is the
None of the things reflected on page 81 [of Leeman's
Book] were put to
plaintiff. Are you surprised ? I rather think the things
reflected there are well-known and the writer thereof is not at odds
Whatever you intended saying it is not the answer to my
question. If I am correct he [plaintiff] was denied the opportunity
to allegations on page
81 ? Hence my saying if that is the procedure then those
ought to have been put".
I may only say regrettably they were not; and the
authorities are very clear on that aspect of the matter. The
defaulting side cannot
stand to benefit from such omissions
especially when they relate to what it regards to be of vital
importance to its case.
The 1st defendants evidence under cross-examination was
typified by long silences which were occasioned, no doubt, by his
to do the impossible i.e. reconcile the truth in the purport
of the question with the voidness of his replies. After
weaving and ducking when it was pointed out to him
that he takes rather long before answering questions he said he
doesn't take equal
time to give his answers. But clearly this reply
missed the essence of the simple question put to him.
However when once more he was in agony to respond to a
simple question within a reasonably short time put as follows :
"Does the Constitution say if a person who has been
defamed does notapproach one who has defamed him, he cannot have
recourse tolaw ? (After a long pause)" he replied "my
"You agree you take a long time to answer simple
questions ....? Ill agree."
This to me implies nothing else but the realisation on
the part of the 1st defendant that his reactions and answers could
muster. He was as earlier stated, trying to defend the
indefensible. Coupled with the fact that it seemed in regard to the
that it is not the 1 st defendants case that these
true hence Mr. Khauoe's decision not to cross examine
the plaintiff to that effect (p.55), he and his counsel were holding
position the 1st defendant was bound to fall between two
It is important to note that the outwork that was being
hedged around him by the 1st defendant who repeatedly
expressed surprise that he was being sued by the plaintiff also gave
in to pressure of effective cross-examination.
It will be recalled
that he repeatedly said Shakhane is the one who has been referred to
in the material complained of. Thus Mr Phafane
"Though you keep saying that the matter really
affects Mr ShakhaneMokhehle you do concede that the parts that
plaintiff has sued on areparts which affect him ? Yes some of
them relate to him.
You concede that in the absence of evidence before this
Court that these
publications are true they remain defamatory of
plaintiff. ? Yes if
there is no evidence. Next part is I regard the letter
of "Oa Mohlakeng" as evidence of where they were extracted
You miss the point you say "Oa Mohlakeng"
repeated what was said
by someone else but you have no proof at your disposal
that these are true
? Things published don't bind the Editor to search
around to find if they
are true or not".
The damage done by this cross-examination could scarcely
be cured or remedied in re-examination.
I may also deal briefly with the perception that because
Shakhane Mokhehle is the one who has been referred to in Leeman's
the plaintiff is wrong in suing the defendants. First this
perception is itself wrong because the plaintiff has also been
referred to in Exh "B". Next, the fact that
Shakhane has not sued does not bar the plaintiff from doing so in
his rights for protection of his good name.
THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE LAW
The Court has been favoured with useful heads of
arguments by both counsel. The Court is greatly appreciative of this.
Mr Khauoe for the defendants submitted that the
defendants have said that they have not defamed the plaintiff This
from the fact that they only published the article
which was a translation of the published works of Leeman.
Learned Counsel posed a three-pronged question:
(4)1 Is there any defamation, and if so
(4)2 by whom?
(4)3 What is defamation.
To answer the more important parts of this question it
would be fruitful to have recourse to authorities. J.M. Burchell in
book The Law of Defamation in South Africa gives the
following definition of defamation at page 35 :
"Defamation by an individual, in the light of the
above definitions and the contemporary case law, is therefore:
The unlawful, intentional, publication of defamatory
matter (by words or conduct) referring to the plaintiff, which causes
to be impaired. "
Coming closer to the matter at hand the Learned writer
goes further to say :
"The Appellate Division has recently held that the
press, radio and television are strictly liable for defamation. In
animus injuriandi(or even negligence) on the part of the
mass media is not essential. Defamation by the media would therefore
defined in the same way as defamation by an individual except that
the requirement of intention would have to be omitted."
I am in respectful agreement with this definition.
I may hasten to also observe that the words which
falsely attribute dishonesty and or criminality to an individual are
Mr Khauoe promptly addressed the Court on this subject
against the back- drop of the fact that the plaintiff is a politician
such therefore a public figure. He indicated that the
said position even before the Article was published. He won the
election after the Article was published and he is now a
Learned counsel referred the Court to Mandela vs Falati
1995(1) SA 251 at 260 for the proposition that the law now is that no
should be permitted to silence his critics as criticism of
such person must be free, open, robust and even unrestrained. I am in
agreement with what is highlighted in what amounts to characteristic
aspects of the criticism outlined and do note happily that the
characteristics of criticism set out do not include "false or
I have also had regard to the important decision of the
supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa in Natonal Media Limited and
vs Bogoshi, Nthedi Morole Case No.579/96A (unreported) where it
is stated that for the plaintiff to succeed in a case for defamation
one of the elements to be proved is animus injuriandi. Mr Khauoe
stressed that the test according to this case is objective. Long
this decision is I have noted that at page 14 the learned Hefer JA.
"Defendants* counsel rightly, in my view, accepted
that there are compelling reasons for holding that the media should
treated on the same footing as ordinary members of the public
by permitting them to rely on the absence of animus injuriandi, and
that it would be appropriate to hold media defendants liable unless
they were not negligent in the circumstances of the case".
I have also noted that this decision is largely based on
the Interim Constitution of South Africa. I have not been addressed
the Lesotho Constitution on the subject is on all fours
with that of south Africa. I would hesitate to act on the presumption
this is so. Moreover the
the learned Hefer J.A. are telling in the sort of caution that he
adopted at page 18 where he said
"The Constitutional Court unanimously held in Du
Plessis that the Interim Constitution did not 'turn conduct which was
before it came into force into lawful conduct the defendants
are not entitled to invoke s. 15 as a defence to an action for
for defamation published before the Constitution came into
The decisions of Superior Courts of South Africa
especially the Appellate Division are of great persuasive value to
our Courts. But
that is not to say even where the law relied upon in
that country is based on a statute that does not necessarily coincide
as our constitutions differ; we should feel obliged to
blindly follow their decisions. It behoved learned counsel therefore
this Court to provisions in our constitution that are
similar to those of South Africa on which this decision is patently
regrettably he didn't.
The learned counsel submitted that the role of the press
is to contribute to the exchange of ideas already alluded to and to
communication between the governed and those who govern. I
agree with this submission.
He went on to highlight the fact that the concept of
strict liability in the modem law, does no longer apply in cases of
and concluded that in the light of this it is apparent
that the defendants did not have animus injuriandi when they allowed
publication of Exh "B". Further that the 1st
defendant was not negligent in allowing the publication of this
article as he was led to the
source Leeman's Works by the Leader of the BCP. He
finally submitted that the plaintiff could not be heard to say that
was injured when he mounted a successful campaign for
a parliamentary seat even in the aftermath of the publication of the
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff Mr Phafane after
neatly submitting that the law of defamation protects reputation,
this is part of the law which is concerned with the
reconciliation of a citizen's right to enjoy the reputation which he
and a citizen's right of freedom of speech.
After referring the Court to The Law of South Africa
Volume VII page 195 paragraph 235 where W.A. Joubert aptly says:
"The delict of defamation is the unlawful
publication, animus injuriandi of a statement concerning another
person which has the
effect of injuring that person in his
the learned counsel submitted that publication of a
defamatory statement about a person constitutes an invasion of his
right to reputation,
and prima facie unlawful. I agree with this
Indeed it is trite law that publication of defamatory
statements proved or admitted results in two inferences arising, to
that the publication was wrongful, and (b) that the
defendant acted animus injuriandi. See S.A. Uitsaai Korp vs Malley
p. 394. The head note at 396
is of particular interest.
Pakendorf en Andere vs De Flamig 1982(3) SA 146 at 156-158 fit is
emphatically laid down that in the case of defamation by the
against an individual strict liability applies and the presence of
"animus injurandi" is not a pre-requisite for
however note that in National Media Limited above Hefer J.A. has
expressed the view that Pakendorf should be overruled.
But it is
stimulating to observe that the defendant still bears the onus of
rebutting animus injuriandi subject of course to the
that there is no requirement of animus injuriandi in publication
media. Thus strict liability has been retained. This
disposes of the contention in the 1st defendants evidence
that he didn't intend defaming the plaintiff. It goes without saying
therefore that once it has been proved that
defamatory the defendants are liable whether or not it is their
intention that it be so.
Mr Phafane illustrated that the 1st defendant is
mistaken if he thinks that he can escape liability on the grounds
that he is not
the author of the article Exh "B". It is
common cause that the 1st defendant received the article from a
"Oa Mohlakeng" whose names he knows but
refused to disclose to the plaintiff's counsel prior to the
institution of this
action or even to Court. But Prof R.G. McKerron
in The Law of Delict at page 184 makes it plain that a person in the
to that of 1st defendant is liable. The
learned Author says :
"Every person who takes part in publishing, or in
procuring the publication of defamatory matter is prima facie liable.
where defamatory matter is published in a newspaper, not only
the writer, but also the editor, printer, publisher and proprietor
can all be made liable. Such persons cannot be heard to say that they
not aware that the newspaper contained defamatory
matter, for it is their duty to acquaint themselves with the contents
of the newspapers
which they put into circulation" Emphasis
The 1st defendant sought to escape liability
by saying that he was merely quoting a certain writer. But in this
exercise he has promoted
reading of material that is defamatory,
drawn attention of other persons to it and revived recollections of
those who might have
read and forgotten it, and has induced those who
knew nothing about the material to acquaint themselves therewith. See
pp 184 and 185. Indeed as shown earlier the 1st
defendant admits as much under cross-examination. The very heading of
Exh "B" is indeed to that effect. The article is
translated into Sesotho in order for those who do not know English to
acquaint themselves with the kind of person the plaintiff
Needless to say an imputation of dishonesty and or criminality
including treachery smack of high moral turpitude. Publishers
thus discouraged from reviving memories, that may have faded, of past
defamatory material. Thus it cannot avail a publisher or
hide behind what appears to be a stale source if he constitutes
himself an amplifier of something that could otherwise
attracted attention of others. McKerron's submissions at p 154 are
important in the light of the defence raised i.e.
that this is a
publication by Leeman. Defendants only reproduced and translated it.
" a person who directs attention to defamatory
matter which has been published, or otherwise promotes the reading of
be held to have taken part in its publication".
See also African Life Assurance Society vs Robinson
Co. 1938 N.P.D. 277.
The defendants contend in their plea that even if they
are found to have published matter that is defamatory their defence
is that of justification.
In my humble view this plea cannot be raised here
because the defendants failed to discharge the onus that was on them
that the publication
is true. It is a matter of simple logic and
common sense that if the defendant fails to establish that his or her
defence is true
that defence falls away. On the other hand the
plaintiff is required to prove that, viewed fairly by reasonable men
the statement refers to him, and;
that it is defamatory of him.
See Williams & another vs van der Merwe 1994(2) SA
60 at p.64 A.
I may just comment that the plaintiff in the instant
matter met the two requirements shown in (a) and (b) above.
In head 7.1 Mr Phafane referred the Court to S.A
Associated Newspapers vs Yuter 1969(2) SA 442 at 451 the dictum of
which is that
it is lawful to publish defamatory statements which are
true, provided that the publication is for public benefit. At page
also makes the point that the onus is on the defendant
to show that the material published is true. Applying these tests to
of the instant case presents one with startling revelations
that fall short of the requirements which ought to be satisfied if
defendants are to escape liability.
The plaintiff is said to have been involved in
embezzlement of BCP funds with Shakhane. But DW1 says he does not
know whether this
is true. That mere admission, inescapable as
evidence turned it out to be, is fatal.
Neethling vs The Weekly Mail & Another 1994(1) SA
708-9 is authority for the proposition that the onus is upon the
establish either some justification or excuse for the
defamatory language used. He is encumbered with a full onus in regard
defences of (a) truth, (b) in the public benefit and of (c)
privilege bearing in mind though that in our law there is no general
The next startling feature in the face of the legal
requirements which have to be satisfied is the fact that DW1 does not
it is true or not that the plaintiff was involved in
illicit diamond dealing in Botswana; further whether indeed the
engaged in the bribery of police in Botswana or even
was arrested there for illicit diamond dealing yet DW1 publishes the
without caring whether or not it is true.
It is relevant therefore to consider this publication
against the background of Moolman vs Slovo 1964(1) SA 760 at p 762
was thought that a publication similar to Exh"B"
may very well have been actuated by malice. If the publication is
recklessly then malice is presumed. Enough has been revealed in
evidence to lead to an inescapable conclusion that the defendants
instant case caused publication of the defamatory matter
in Exh "B" without caring whether it is true or false.
The 1st defendant was indeed reckless in the
sense that having received the letter that constituted this Article
Exh "B" from the
"faceless" "Oa Mohlakeng"
who is his confidante, and having found that it purports to derive
its root from the
writings of Leeman, he did nothing to find if it is
correct. Needless to say, responsible media would have gone to the
in order to verify the correctness of this article. I
accept Mr Phafane's submission that this is what a responsible Editor
should have done. But the failure to do so can be traced
from no further than the defendants' plea where the defendants'
is that the Constitution requires the plaintiff to come
tip-toeing to the defendants instead and ask that a proper
made about him. While on the one hand and in a sense
it could be said to be understandable though not in the least
the defendants entertained this strange notion to the
extent that they could proffer it in evidence, on the other hand
pleadings is the office and function of legal
practitioners who are experts in that field. It therefore beggars
this oddity of a cuckoo in the nest was allowed to
form part of the pleadings.
I accept Mr Phafane's submission that in this instance
the Constitution is being abused as there is no Common Law
requirement of the
nature that plaintiff should have acted as
the 1st defendant. In fact a Constitution is a mere
frame work within which all the laws are to operate consistently with
The defendants have pleaded justification and
alternatively fair comment.
The requirements for defence under these headings are :
what has been published must be true
it must be an expression of opinion not a statement of fact and must
be recognizable as such to the ordinary reasonable men.
expressions of opinion only, and not statements of fact which are
protected by a plea of fair comment. See McKerron at p.200.
The learned author elaborates the defence of fair
comment by saying :
"It is right of every man to comment freely,
fairly, and honestly on any matter of public interest, and this is
not a privilege
which belongs to particular persons in particular
See also Crawford vs Albu 1917 AD 102atp 114. This
authority is adamant that the comment must be fair, that is to say
and free from malice. It is fair if it is a genuine
expression of the critic's real opinion. Needless to say the 1st
defendant in the instant matter insisted that the publication he made
constituted statements of facts about the plaintiff. It stands
reason that he and the 2nd defendant fall outside the pale
of protection afforded reliance on genuine expression of the critic's
real opinion. These statements
of fact must have affected the
plaintiffs reputation and
reduced the esteem with which he was held in that he was
perceived as a crook, as a man who embezzled BCP funds and as a man
police in Botswana and dealt in illicit diamond
transactions in that country as a result of which he was even
arrested apart from
betraying his colleagues.
When the 1st defendant made the admission
that what is published in Exh "B" is a statement of fact
and not an opinion then that was
the end of the defence he was
seeking to rely on.
The Court has come to the conclusion that the defendants
are unable to prove the defence they are seeking to rely on. All they
clinging on is that they have merely repeated what someone else
has stated in Exh "E". But as shown earlier this runs
to the dependable authority of Arican Life Assurance Society
Ltd above. Thus this cannot avail as a defence in law. They further
seek to raise as a defence the fact that the plaintiff has not sued
Leeman, yet the 1st defendant blazed the trail in
conceding that he doesn't even know if the plaintiff was ever aware
of Leeman's alleged publication.
In the light of the findings I have made above 1
conclude that the plaintiff has discharged his onus and the
defendants are held liable
to him for defamation.
The question of ascertaining quantum of damages has
always presented an irksome hurdle to Courts of law. But it is
the plaintiffs remedy lies in damages. He has claimed
M90 000-00 in his summons to compensate his injured feelings as well
hurt to his dignity and reputation resulting from this wanton
attack to his good name. 1 have already found for a fact that for all
the 64 years of his life he has enjoyed an unblemished reputation.
That indeed has to be protected. In the straightforward and
evidence he gave he indicated that he received plaudits
from rank and file including a letter of appreciation from the
of the BCP for his devotion, help and generosity towards
that organisation. Such high esteem in which he was held ought not to
been sullied without cause.
Authorities are ad idem that if publication makes an
imputation of serious crime and dishonesty as also political
damages are called for. See See Buthelezi vs
Poorter 1974(2) SA 831 at pp 833-838.
Punitive damages may be awarded where there is
deliberate attempt to destroy the plaintiffs reputation without any
present seems to be the case that fills the bill.
Indeed even where the Court finds that there is
justification for publication the scales are turned at once when
there is persistence
in the defence of truth, public interest etc
particularly as in this case this persistence is indulged in
recklessly and irresponsibly.
defence of truth stands out in the defendants' empty bulwark as
indeed it appears in their plea. The Court thus does have regard
the fact that from as early as at the time of filing plea the
plaintiffs contention that the allegation was not true was met with
persistence by the defendants who pleaded justification and fair
Mr Phafane accordingly made a submission which I accept
that this persistence in defence of truth and public benefit is
for an award of punitive damages.
Mr Khauoe argued that politicians being public figures
are not to be overzealously protected against criticism. I agree but
case turns on its own merits. For instance while in C. of
A(CIV)No.10 of 1983 Clovis Manyeli vs Vincent Makhele and Another
the High Court had found that the applicant then had
been paid in the same coin that politicians like himself pay each
Court of Appeal awarded the appellant damages of M8 000-00
for defamation; a fairly huge amount by those days' standards.
I have also taken into account the fact that in C. of A.
(CIV) No. 13/98 Lesotho University Teachers and Researchers Union vs
University of Lesotho (unreported) where the Court of first
instance had hesitated on the brink against awarding costs on
and client scale the Court of appeal awarded such costs. I
say this bearing in mind that the Court of first instance has at all
been credited with having the feel of the case at first-hand
and in a case involving viva voce
evidence observation of the demeanour of the witnesses
is a factor that it alone enjoys while the appellate Court is denied
feature of the case it presides on at a later stage.
I must thus confess to surprise, even to some degree of
indignation that despite the passage of time and sheer likelihood
case might well go against them the defendants remained
obdurate and failed to tender to the plaintiff the smallest
regret at the extraordinary sullying of his good name
without justification. However the question of damages is in the
of the Court. Indeed as authorities aptly state in the
absence of justification for defamatory publication malice is
Burchell above at p.293 says :
may be more to be said for allowing 'punitive' or 'exemplary' damages
in a system of law where the judge, not a jury,
has control over the
ultimate extent of the damages, but retribution or deterrence are
nevertheless not convincing or desirable purposes
of an award of
In essence, the controversy surrounding punitive damages
is one of emphasis. The critics of punitive damages rightly stress
court in a civil case must not make an award of damages or a
portion of an award purely to penalize the defendant for his conduct
or to attempt to deter people in future from doing what the defendant
has done: punishment and deterrence are functions of the Criminal
law, not delict. But even the critics of 'punitive' damages would, I
think, accept that factors aggravating the defendants conduct
serve to increase the amount awarded to the plaintiff as
compensation, either to vindicate his reputation or act as a
I respectfully agree with this last sentence in the
This learned writer states at p.30 that :
"There are obvious disadvantages in the traditional
methods of obtaining redress for an impaired reputation. It is clear
rather than limiting our options, we should be looking for more
effective ways of achieving harmony between freedom of expression
the right to reputation. It is acknowledged that an award of damages
may play an important role in the vindication of reputation,
least satisfaction or partial satisfaction of the injured plaintiff,
but there may be additional ways of achieving this end".
Having considered all factors which I could humanly
afford to do I order that both defendants pay the plaintiff the sum
(1) M90 000-00 compensatory damages for defamation
jointly and severally one paying the other to be absolved.
M15 000-00 punitive damages jointly and severally one
paying the other to be absolved. I also order the defendants to pay
interest on the above amounts at the rate of 18.5% per
annum a tempore morae plus
(4) costs a quarter of which should be on attorney and
client scale while the balance thereof should be on party and party
JUDGE 22nd December, 1999
For Plaintiff: Mr Phafane For Defendants : Mr Khauoe
African Law (AfricanLII)
Ghana Law (GhaLII)
Laws of South Africa (Legislation)
Lesotho Law (LesLII)
Liberian Law (LiberLII)
Malawian Law (MalawiLII)
Namibian Law (NamibLII)
Nigerian Law (NigeriaLII)
Sierra Leone Law (SierraLII)
South African Law (SAFLII)
Seychelles Law (SeyLII)
Swaziland Law (SwaziLII)
Tanzania Law (TanzLII)
Ugandan Law (ULII)
Zambian Law (ZamLII)
Zimbabwean Law (ZimLII)
Commonwealth Countries' Law
LII of India
United States Law