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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
