CIV/T/547/94

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter between :

THULO
MOJAKI PLAINTIFF

vs

MOHLOMI
MOLAHLI DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Honourable Mr. Justice T. Monapathi on the 22nd November 1995

Damages
for the death of the deceased, who was only about 19 years, are being
claimed by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is deceased's
father. Deceased
was not yet in his Form 5 class of study at school. A sum of Twenty
Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Three
Maluti and Forty Eight
Lisente (M22,883.48) and costs as being claimed against the
Defendant, who is assisted by his father and
legal guardian
LEFANTSATSA MOLAHLI.

The
summons was issued on the 22nd December 1994 and served on the 11th
January 1995. There has been intention to defend the action
dated the
12th January 1995. No plea has today been filed despite a notice to
file same dated

2

the 14th
February 1995. The Defendant was duly barred from pleading. The
matter was on the 1st April 1995 duly set for hearing on
the 24th
October 1995 and then postponed to the 8th November 1995 and the 22nd
November 1995 for default judgment when it was finally
heard. Before
the final date of hearing the Plaintiff's attorneys A. T. Monyako &
Co. withdrew and were replaced by B. Sooknanan
& Associates.

Formal
evidence was given in the form of viva voce evidence of the
deceased's father, the Plaintiff. The Court made it clear that
it
could not allow damages for what was called ten head of cattle to
raise up the head of the deceased. The first reason is that
that is
matter for Subordinate Courts and it is only with leave of this Court
that the matter would be entertained. Such leave
had not been sought.
Secondly, despite that the Defendant has not defended the action he
surely could not have contemplated a claim
in the nature of ten head
of cattle to have been intended to be included in the total claim.
This was more probably so with the
stark absence of particularity
found in the plaintiff's declaration.

I was
only prepared to make an award of what are essentially financial
expenses of special nature. Indeed these included desparate
items
such as telegrams, uplifting

3

of
mourning cloth and ceremony expenses and shoes to dress the deceased
body. These were special damages. They were proved to the

satisfaction of this Court. Some insurance houses have resolved to
stipulate a fixed amount for burial expenses. These they have
done
for the reason that with time and change of people's attitudes
burials are becoming expensive. Items claimed are becoming
fickle and
some outright unusual. Burials are becoming big occasions and a show
of status. It has been rightly decided that a lot
of care should be
exercised and a limit imposed. Had it not been the impression the
Plaintiff's impression that a claim for ten
head of cattle had to be
entertained I would have brought in the question of deliberate abuse
of the Court's jurisdiction. The
summons was drawn by an attorney.
Hence my dismay. I would not punish the Plaintiff for the offence.

In the
result a much reduced sum of Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Two
Maluti and Forty two Lisente (M, 5682.42) was awarded
by me, with
costs of suit on the ordinary scale.

T.MONAPATHI

JUDGE

22nd
November, 1995

For the
Plaintiff : B. Sooknanan & Associates

For the
Defendant : No appearance