SUMMARY

Law of Delict – Claim for damages for pain and suffering, contumelia and medical and hospital expenses incurred - Plaintiff unlawfully assaulted severally with a baton, a gun pointed at his forehead, thrown into a culvert filled with water and insulted by 1st Defendant and his colleagues, all happening in full view of colleagues and members of the public - sustained bodily injuries and blacked out only to wake up in hospital unable to speak and eat – Plaintiff frequently suffering from severe headaches, constant eye pain and nose bleeding post the assault.  Joint and several liability – 2nd Defendant acted in the course and scope of his employment – 1st Defendant, his employer, held vicariously liable for 2nd Defendant’s unlawful assault on Plaintiff - Request for Default Judgment – Grounds for – Delictual damages awarded at the discretion of the court taking into account such factors as previous comparable awards in similar cases, the nature and extent of injuries sustained and treatment received and prevalent economic conditions within the jurisdiction - Default judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved

SUMMARY

This is a delictual claim in which the plaintiff has asked the Court to award him damages for assault inflicted to his son by the Defendants’ agents while his son was under their care and protection at Mohlomi mental hospital. The Plaintiff states that as a result of the assault, his son suffered permanent brain damage and is bedridden, lacks anal and urinary sphincter control. Consequently, his son needs a regular medical attention, special dietary and full time professional nurse. The Defendants do not deny liability but only charge that after receiving the letter of demand, they engaged the Plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Matooane for negotiations concerning plaintiff’s claim. This is due to the fact that it is impossible for the Ministry to just pay out an amount of Twenty Million Maloti (M20 000 000.00) without referring the child for medical assessment to ascertain the degree of damage (injury) caused.

Held:

The Respondents are liable for the injuries incurred by the child and resultantly, to compensate the Plaintiff.

  SUMMARY

          DELICT: A claim for funeral and hospital expenses incurred by the deceased’s child consequent to her being killed in a motor vehicle accident- contributory negligence of the deceased not playing any role in this case as the plaintiff was innocent of any wrongdoing- Plaintiff awarded damages

JUDGMENT

Summary

Claim for damages - Motor vehicle collission - Allegedly due to defendant’s sole negligence - Negligence proven - Claimant awarded costs for the repair of his motor vehicle; for pain and suffering; and interest at the current prime lending rate as prescribed by the Central Bank of Lesotho - Medical expenses claimed not proven and, therefore, not granted.

Summary

Action for loss of support - child to be maintained retarded -   dependency of the minor child to extend to his lifetime - factors to be taken into account

                                                     SUMMARY

LAW OF DELICT: Plaintiff claiming damages suffered as a result of a choking gas being thrown into his sleeping quarters- Plaintiff having to retire  prematurely due to health complications occasioned by this incident- Plaintiff awarded damages only for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.

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

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.  

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.