CIV/T/233/87

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter of :

'MATHABANG
NTSAMO Plaintiff

V

CHIEFTAINESS
PASCALINA LETSIE Defendant

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Hon. Mr. Justice M.L. Lehohla on the 13th day of April, 1989.

Plaintiff
'Mathabang Ntsamo is sueing Chieftainess Pascalina Letsie for damages
occasioned by an alleged defamation relating to
words which were
uttered by defendant against 'Mathabang Ntsamo. The words appear in
the summons and have been adequately supported
by evidence that has
been led before this Court.

In the
summons it is set out that the words complained of are that

"This subject of mine did not fall ill. She was killed by
'Mathabang because she called riders for him. These riders have

killed him, I shall say these words until I am in the witness box."

These
were the words which were said at the funeral of Mapholo Mosoatsi.

I need
hardly allude to the fact that this Mapholo somehow was associated
with theft of goats of plaintiff. This has not quite come
out in the
evidence save that a man called Molupe is the one who it appears
investigations leading to the arrest of the deceased
seemed to
connect with the commission of the offence of theft of stock that was
lost to plaintiff.

2

Plaintiff,
it has been adequately canvassed in evidence, lost her goats and she
duly reported the matter to her chieftainess, the
defendant,' who
detailed men to go and look for the goats and village men duly
recovered these goats in a matter of not more than
twenty-four hours.
One would have thought that plaintiff would have been satisfied with
this state of affairs, but it turned out
that she was not all that
happy. So she appealed to/the horse-riders who as it appears now went
about their job pretty vigorously
if not mercilessly which resulted
in the death of the,deceased. And the words that have been referred
to above were uttered at
the funeral of this deceased. On that basis
I do find that the words were defamatory per se in that they tend to
connect defendant
with the death of the deceased. I may, even at this
moment pause and consider whether one wouldn't, consider that they
were said
in the heat of passion or in circumstances which reveal
that there was what is called rixa in other words, in an exchange of
angry
words due. to a sudden provocation or some such thing regard
being had to the fact that the chieftainess had done her lot and had

managed through her efforts to secure the presence of the lost stock.
That plaintiff should

resort to
the horse riders is a matter that one could regard as having angered
the chieftainess. But unfortu­nately she hasn't
come to support
just this view at all because she is not before Court and once the
plaintiff has established a prima facie case
in a case of defamation
about the intent with which the words were said, that is, words which
are defamatory, then an inference
immediately follows that they were
said with a malicious intent. And since she hasn't come to discharge
the burden that has shifted
to her side I find that the plaintiff has
made out her case for defamation.

All that
now remains at this stage is the question of quantum. It has been
said that plaintiff is a person of relatively low standing
in her
community. But regard also ' should be taken of the fact that the
utterer of the words is not a person of low standing.
On the contrary
she is a person of authority and persons of authority should be

3

careful
at all times that whatever trouble occurs in their areas doesn't
occur due to their instigation. That defendant took it
upon herself
to utter these words and actually go to the extend of saying that she
would stick out her claim that plaintiff killed
the deceased even in
a Court of law I think was not only bold but very daring.

All this,
I am saying at the back of my mind still thinking that she might have
been moved to this end by her anger, but that has
been dealt with
earlier and therefore my only mention of it is with regard to
damages.

Plaintiff
has claimed a sum of three thousand five hundred Maluti as damages
which could compensate the injury to her good name
and has also asked
for costs.

I have
taken into account the fact that defendant hasn't really done
anything to mitigate this claim of damages albeit that in argument
on
her behalf it has been said that plaintiff is an ordinary citizen but
I don't think ordinary citizens deserve to be treated
the way that
plaintiff seems to have been treated by defendant.

It is
most unbecoming that at a funeral gathering where there are many
people including relatives of the deceased who could explode
into
anything that might injure or cause plaintiff physical harm these
words should have been said.

Having
said all this I find that the amount that has been claimed could at
best meet the justice of this case if a reduction of
five hundred
Maluti has been made plus costs. In other words judgment is entered
for plaintiff in the amount of three thousand
Maluti plus costs.

JUDGE

13th
April, 1989.

For
Plaintiff : Mr. Pheko

For
Defendant : Mr. Moorosi.