Tort Law

Limema V Commissioner of Police (CIV/T/407/14) [2021]LSHC 08 (18 February 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

CIVIL PRACTICE: Claim for damages for unlawful assault by police officers- mutually destructive versions of witnesses- approach thereto

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                    CIV/T/407/2014

                           

In the matter between:-

 

LIPHAPANG LIMEMA                                              PLAINTIFF

 

AND

 

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE                                  1st DEFENDANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL                                             2nd DEFENDANT

 

Mohlakola V Shoprite Supermarket (Pty)Ltd (CIV/T/238/10) [2020] LSHC 51 (09 September 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

Plaintiff`s version of events was overwhelmingly credible including that he could not have been the cause of the squabble that caused an assault on him.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                                             CIV/T/238/2010

In the matter between:-             

 

FRANCIS TS`OTLEHO MOHLAKOLA                     PLAINTIFF

 

And

 

SHOPRITE SUPERMAKET (PTY) LTD                     DEFENDANT

 

JUDGEMENT

 

Letsie v Commissioner of Police (CIV/T/574/23) [2020] LSHC 48 (16 November 2020);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                    CIV/T/574/13

 

 

In the matter between:

 

 

KHAMA S. LETSIE                                                     PLAINTIFF

 

 

AND

 

 

COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL

SERVICE                                                                     1st DEFENDANT

 

Mafereka v Commissioner of Police (C of A (CIV) 56/19) [2020] LSCA 39 (30 October 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

Police - Actions against - Limitation of - Police Act 1998, s 77 - When required - Plaintiffs  instituting action against the police – for wrongful impoundment of appellant’s vehicle- Defendants raising special defence of Prescription within the terms of s77 of the Act – Claim not raised under the Act - claim not prescribed - Whether policeman acting 'in course and scope of his employment' as servant of State invariably   acting 'in pursuance of' Police Act, or whether two concepts necessarily co-extensive - - Plaintiffs limiting themselves to allegation that policeman acting in course and scope of his employment as servant of State - No allegation in particulars, expressly or tacitly, that policeman acting in pursuance of Act - Two concepts 'in course and scope of his employment' and 'in pursuance of the Act' notionally distinct from each other - Inherent differences justifying conclusion that two concepts legally not entirely corresponding - Only  once relevant facts established is it possible to determine, applying recognised principles, whether acts complained of amounting to conduct 'within course and scope of employment' or 'in pursuance of' or both or neither - In result, particulars in casu equivocal - Incumbent on defendants to prove that policeman's conduct on which plaintiff's action founded was in pursuance of Act - Such not proved - Special plea correctly dismissed.  

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                C of A (CIV) NO.56 2019

                                                                    CIV/T/202/2013

In the Matter Between

 

DANIEL MAFEREKA                                          APPELLANT

AND

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE                        1ST RESPONDENT

Jonas v The Commissioner of Police (C of A (CIV) 53/19) [2020] LSCA 37 (30 October 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

Condonation application, when grantable –Damages-Unlawful arrest, detention and injuria-Appropriate quantum of damages-when the appellate court can interfere with the primary court award of damages, when the award does not appropriately mirror the seriousness of Police misconduct.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

                                                C OF A (CIV) No 53/19

In the Matter between:

MOKETE JONAS                                                                            APPELLANT

AND

COMMMISSIONER OF POLICE                                          1ST RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL                                                      2ND RESPODNENT

 

Ntabe v Matete (CIV/T/458/10) [2019] LSHC 56 (14 November 2019);

Share
Search Summary: 

Damages – for damage occasioned to the plaintiff’s taxi as a result of the collision with the defendant’s truck – costs of panel beating – Evidence – How loss of profit is to be approached- factors to be considered when dealing with loss of profit.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                                         CIV/T/458/2010

 

In the Matter Between:-

 

LERATO NTABE                                                                              PLAINTIFF

AND

MPHOSE MATETE                                                                          1ST DEFENDANT

Mokhankhane v Attorney General (CIV/T/373/18) [2020] LSHC 26 (15 October 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

Summary:

LAW OF DELICT: The plaintiffs are claiming damages from the defendants for assault and torture - the 3rd defendant is being sued for negligent omission for handing over the suspects to the victim to ferry to the police- the victims turning against the plaintiffs along the way by severely assaulting and torturing them- The Chiefs’ legal duty flowing from the exercise of their functions in terms of the Chieftainship Act of 1968 discussed- The 3rd defendant’s action found to be the probable cause of the plaintiffs’ damage- claim against 4th to 14th defendants is based on their actual perpetration of assault and torture of the plaintiffs- Plaintiffs awarded damages.

                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                                                                 CIV/T/373/2018

 

In the Matter Between:-

 

MACI MOKHANKHANE                                                                           1ST PLAINTFF

Monele v Mpakathe (CIV/T/496/17) [2019] LSHC 42 (02 September 2019);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                      CIV/T/496/17

 

In the matter between                                                     

 

THABA MONELE                                         PLAINTIFF

 

AND

 

KEISARA MPAKATHE                                 DEFENDANT

 

JUDGEMENT

Coram: Banyane AJ

Date of hearing: 26/08/19

Nchere v Roads Directorate (CIV/T/504/19) [2019] LSHC 39 (11 November 2019);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                              CIV/T/504/19

 

 

In the matter between

 

 

PEKENENE DONALD NCHERE                             PLAINTIFF

 

 

AND                                                                                              

 

 

ROADS DIRECTORATE                                       DEFENDANT

 

 

JUDGEMENT

Makhaba v The Commissioner of Police (CIV/T/319/11) [2017] LSHC 38 (14 November 2017);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

CIV/T/319/2011

 

In the matter between:

 

JOEL DIAMOND MAKHABA                           PLAINTIFF

 

And

 

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE       1ST RESPONDENT

THE ATTORNY GENERAL                     2ND RESPONDENT

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

CORAM:                          T. NOMNGCONGO

Pages