IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter between:-
MALATSI LEBAJOA PLAINTIFF
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 1ST DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL 2ND DEFENDANT
CORAM : HON MR JUSTICE S.N. PEETE
DATE : 30TH MARCH 2010
 In his amended summons and declaration, the plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
“(a) Payment of the sum of M90,000 in respect of pain, shock
and suffering and contumelia.
 The late delivery of this judgment is much regretted.
 On the 7th November 2008, Mr Motsieloa for the Defendant gallantly admitted liability and put at issue only the quantum of damages.
Briefly stated, facts are as follows:
(3) En route, their combis were stopped by a white police vehicle and all occupants including plaintiff were ordered to alight; and some seven to eight policemen then proceeded to search them and it was during this search that the police found a gun in the possession of one Teboho Lesia.
(4) Thereafter the police ordered plaintiff and his sixteen Famo comrades to lie down and the policemen then proceeded to belabour them with mabetlela sticks. Plaintiff gave evidence informing the court that some of the policemen even stomped on his head and kicked him and that this assault lasted for an hour during which many villagers including his own wife had gathered to witness the spectacle.
(5) He went on to say that they were told to drive to Matelile Police Station where they were again ordered to remove their blankets and lie down once more; and the whipping continued for about two hours. Their tormentors at times ordered them to roll over when a whistle was being blown.
(6) After these assaults they were ordered into the cells and locked up and were released on the following day, a Sunday.
 Interestingly, Her Ladyship Majara J has covered the legal issues in the case of Lephatsoe Lebajoa vs Commissioner of Police & Anothera plaintiff of which had also simultaneously been subjected to the same assaults as the plaintiff in this instant case on the 27th March 2004.
 It is a trite principle of law and justice that similar cases should be treated alike. The two plaintiffs (though in different court cases) had been subjected to one assault by police on 27th March 2004; and the awards of damages should not differ substantially unless there exist special circumstances or that a degree of injury in one case is more grievous than in another.
 The plaintiff has not called any medical evidence to substantiate gravity of his injury justifying his claim of M90,000.00 as damages for pain, shock and suffering as well as for contumelia.
 The plaintiff handed in a medical report “Ex. A” and explained that he was medically examined on the 30th March 2004. The report reads:-
“Degree of force inflicted: Considerate
Danger of injury to life: None
Degree of immediate disability: Light
Degree of long term disability: None
Duration of hospitalization: None
Treated as out patient: Yes”
 I do not find any special circumstances in the present case. I however strongly endorse the terse remarks of Majara J in CIV/T/546/2004 where she censored and deprecated the police assaults and stated-
“…In casu, the fact that assault took place at the hands of police
officers is in my view an aggravating factor…”.
 Her Ladyship went further to deplore the unprofessional manner and abuse of police powers of gratuitously ill-treating and assaulting civilians without cause whereas “police officers are there inter alia, to see to it that all of us are protected and that no one receives that kind of treatment in the hands of another. …it is with the above factors in mind together with the fact that the assault was both unnecessary and unprovoked, the second assault took place at the Matelile Police Station in the presence of senior police officers.” In my view, the finding of the gun in the possession of one man did not justify the brutal assaults on the plaintiff and his colleagues.
 The only distinguishing feature between this case and that of Majara J is perhaps that in latter, the plaintiff was a public figure and a well known musician who probably suffered a graver contumelia during the assault. Otherwise, I adopt the reasoning of Majara J in CIV/T/546/2004 in toto.
 I grant plaintiff an order as follows:-
For Plaintiff : Mr Mahlakeng
For Defendants : Mr Motsieloa
CIV/T/546/2004 delivered on 31stMay 2007.
Adidas Shoes white
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