CIV/T/312/84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter between:
NGAKA MAKHALANYANE )
SEKESE SEKESE ) Plaintiffs
TIMOTHY NQOSA )
V
P.K. MEYER )
WATTS SALEMANE) Defendants
A.T. MOSAKENG)
E.E. BROWN )
JUDGMENT
Delivered by the Honourable Sir Peter Allen, on the 8th day of April, 1987.
The three plaintiffs brought this action for damages for defamation against the four defendants. All parties were working for the same firm of Moshal Gevisser (or Frasers) in February 1984.
The first plaintiff testified first before Cotran C.J. on 7 February, 1986 and he was cross-examined. The hearing was then adjourned and the then Chief Justice left the country.
When this part-heard case came before me for hearing the plaintiffs were represented by different counsel and I had on record the former Chief Justice's notes of the examination and cross-examination of the first plaintiff.
2
However, at the request of both counsel I agreed to start the trial all over again and the first plaintiff commenced his testimony before me. He did not get very far before counsel for the plaintiffs applied to amend the pleadings. I gave two rulings as a result of that and a subsequent application and the effect was that the proposed amendments were not allowed, and the plaintiffs' attempt to withdraw was also refused.
After some further testimony by the first plaintiff, in the course of which I held that my first ruling was being ignored, Mr. Ngakane for the plaintiffs decided to close the plaintiffs' case. Mr. Edeling for the defendants then closed the defendants' case without calling any evidence and he applied for dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim with costs.
The pleadings, in the declaration, asserted that the first three defendants on 22 February, 1984, made a defamatory statement alleging
that the three plaintiffs were thieves and that they had stolen goods belonging to the firm.
The defendants' counsel had no opportunity to cross-examine the first plaintiff when he testified this time because of the sudden closing of the plaintiff's case. Thus that testimony was of little value. However, before Cotran C.J on 7 February, 1986, that same witness
3
was cross-examined thoroughly. The trial judge's record shows on page 5 of the handwritten notes (at the top of the page) the witness was asked about what happened at the gate when the alleged accusation was made. The . witness replied, "I was busy at my section. I only noticed that the lorry was sent back to the yard. I did not hear conversation at the gate."
Then further down on the same page the witness was asked if the second and third defendants said anything that he (P.W.1) could hear. His reply was: "Kepa and 3rd defendant and I met at Meyer's and Botha's office on the same day." When it was pointed out that the witness had not mentioned this in his evidence-in-chief, he replied, "Well nothing happened." Whereas before me this same witness alleged that in the office at that time the defendants had accused him of stealing the property. This was a clear contradiction and, in view of the witnesses earlier testimony,about which he was cross,examined, I find it is not credible.
There was no evidence at all to support the allegation made in para 6.2 of the further particulars that the statement was made to 5 named persons in the presence of members of the public.
Para 5.1 of the plaintiffs' declaration alleges the exact words said to have been spoken by the first,
4
second and third defendants, but there was no evidence of this at all.
Para 5.2 alleges that the defamatory statement was made to the fourth defendant but, again, there was no evidence of this.
The three plaintiffs claimed substantial damages in their summons, M30,000 and M20,000 and M15,000 respectively but there was no attempt to prove that any damage at all was suffered by any of them, let alone the actual amount of such damage.
Accordingly I find that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their claims against the defendants and their whole claim is dismissed with costs.
P.A.P.J. ALLEN
JUDGE
8/4/87.
For Plaintiffs : Mr. Ngakane
For Defendants : Mr. Edeling Judgment delivered.