Tsietsi Mapeshoane V LDF & 2 Others (CIV/T/0039/2022ND) [2026] LSHC 1 (10 February 2026)

# Tsietsi Mapeshoane V LDF & 2 Others (CIV/T/0039/2022ND) [2026] LSHC 1 (10 February 2026) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2026/1/eng@2026-02-10) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2026/1/eng@2026-02-10) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2026/1/eng@2026-02-10) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2026/1/eng@2026-02-10) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from LesLII: Tsietsi Mapeshoane V LDF & 2 Others …&body=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2026/1/eng@2026-02-10) [ Download PDF (294.5 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2026/1/eng@2026-02-10/source) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download PDF (294.5 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2026/1/eng@2026-02-10/source) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Tsietsi Mapeshoane V LDF & 2 Others (CIV/T/0039/2022ND) [2026] LSHC 1 (10 February 2026) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents * __Citations 4 / - Citation Tsietsi Mapeshoane V LDF & 2 Others (CIV/T/0039/2022ND) [2026] LSHC 1 (10 February 2026) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2026] LSHC 1 Copy Hearing date 25 November 2025 Court [High Court](/judgments/LSHC/) Case number CIV/T/0039/2022ND Judges [Dr. Shale J](/judgments/all/?judges=Dr.%20Shale%20J) Judgment date 10 February 2026 Language English ##### __Collections * [Case indexes](/taxonomy/case-indexes) * [Commercial](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial) * [Civil Procedure](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial-civil-procedure) * [Actions and applications](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial-civil-procedure-actions-and-applications) * [Orders](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial-civil-procedure-orders) * [Dismissal of Application](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial-civil-procedure-orders-dismissal-of-application) Summary Read full summary * * * Skip to document content **IN THE****HIGH****COURT OF LESOTHO** **(NORTHERN DIVISION)** **HELD AT LERIBE CIV/****T****/0****039****/202****2****ND** **In the matter between:** **TSIETSI MAPESHOANE****P****LAINTIFF****** **AND** **COMMANDER OF LDF********1 ST DEFENDANT** **MINISTRY OF HEALTH 2 ND DEFENDANT** **ATTORNEY GENERAL 3 RD DEFENDANT****** **__________________________________________________________________** Neutral citation: Tsietsi Mapeshoane v Commander of LDF & 2 Others [[2026] LSHC 21](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2026/21) CIV/T/0039/2022ND (10 February 2026) **CORAM: DR I. SHALE J** **HEARD********:********25 November****2025** **DELIVERED********:****10 th February****202****6** **_SUMMARY_** **_Civil Practice – Judgements and orders_**** _–_**** _Order of absolution from the instance – Action for damages for pain and suffering as well as contumelia_**** _–_**** _Test to be applied in adjudicating an application for absolution re-stated and applied_**** __****_– Absolution from the instance granted with no order as to costs_**** _._** **ANNOTATIONS:** **Cited Cases** **Lesotho** * _Botsane v. Commissioner of Police_ C of A (CIV) No.23/2011; * _Khetsi Khetsi v. Mathabo Tlali-Tlali_ CIV/T/702/2018 [[2025] LSHC 51](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/51); * _Lesotho Bank v. Khabo_ (2000-2004) LAC 91; * _Matsoakeletse v. Klaas_ LAC (2007 – 2008) 84; * _Monate v. ‘Mefane_ C of A (CIV) No.19/2017 [[2018] LSCA 11](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2018/11) (7 December 2018); * _National University of Lesotho v. Thabane_ (C of A (CIV) No. 3/2008) [2008 LSCA 26 (17 October 2008); * _Senior Inspector Sepinare Masupha v. Trooper Nyolohelo Tae_ (C of A (CIV) No. 13/2013 [[2014] LSCA 13](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2014/13) (17 April 2014); * _Standard Chartered Bank v. E.R Sekhonyana_ CIV/T/281/1995; **South Africa** * _Grau Francois v. Levin Van Zyl_ [[2021] ZAGPJHC 559](/akn/za-gp/judgment/zagpjhc/2021/559); * _Rex v. Miller_ 1939 AD 106; * _Masibulele Rautini v. Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)_ (Case No. 853/2020) [[2021] ZASCA 158](/akn/za/judgment/zasca/2021/158) (8 November 2021); * _Mamatshele v. Minister of Police & Others_ [[2024] ZAGPJHC 795](/akn/za-gp/judgment/zagpjhc/2024/795); * _Webb and Others v. Botha_ 1980 (3) SA 666 (N); * _Ruto Flour Mills (Pty) Ltd v. Adelson_ (2) 1958 (4) SA 307 (T); * _Van Zyl NO obo A.M v. MEC for Health, Western Cape Provincial Department of health_ [2023] 1 All SA 501; * _Claude Neon Lights SA Ltd v. Daniel_ 1976 (4) SA 403 (A); * _Munster Estates (Pty) Ltd v. Killarney Hills_ (Pty) Ltd 1979 (1) SA 621 (AD); * _R v. Mokoena_ 1932 OPD 79. **Legislation****:** * High Court Civil Litigation Rules, 2024 Books: * M Dendy & C Loots (eds) (2022) _Herbstein & Van Winsen:_ _The Civil Practice of the High Courts of South Africa_(6th ed) JUTA PUBLISHERS **JUDGEMENT** **INTRODUCTION** [1] In this action Plaintiff claims payment of damages in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Maloti (M300,000.00) from the Defendants jointly and severally. On 22 August 2022, Plaintiff issued civil summons whose declaration categorised the damages as Two Hundred Thousand Maloti (M200,000.00) being for pain and suffering while the One Hundred Thousand Maloti (M100,000.00) was for _contumelia_. Plaintiff also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum as well as costs of suit. [2] Upon service of the summons, the Defendants opposed the action by filing their plea in which they disputed both liability and quantum. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a replication thus pleadings were closed. The matter was then allocated my late brother, Nathane J. who made certain directives, which are not relevant for present purposes. It is imperative to mention that upon his demise the matter was re-allocated to me in May 2025. [3] I then called the parties’ representatives for a Case Management Conference. It is in this conference that the parties brought to the attention of the Court that the matter was ripe for trial. I then directed the parties to file amplified witnesses’ statements and list of documents to be used at the trial since I intended to proceed with the trial in terms of Rule 45 (2) (f) of the High Court Civil Litigations Rules, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “2024 Rules”). This directive was complied with hence the matter was set down for trial. [4] On 25 November 2025 the trial proceeded with leading of evidence by Plaintiff. It is imperative to mention that Plaintiff was the only witness and he closed his case after his testimony. The Court then directed the parties to address it on absolution from the instance. Realizing that they did not have adequate time to make thorough research and meaningful submissions, the Court granted a further indulgence and postponement to enable them to submit their supplemented written submissions. This, they duly did and I must say that the Court is thankful to both Counsel for their helpful submissions. **BACKGROUND FACTS** **** [5] The relevant underlying facts in this matter are in a nutshell as follows. Plaintiff is a thirty-eight (38) year old adult Mosotho male of Mabothile in the district of Botha-Bothe. He is a nurse by profession and at the material time he was stationed at Mokhotlong Government Hospital. Admittedly, on 8 May 2021 he was taken into custody by members of the Lesotho Defence Force to their military base in Bafali. There is a dispute as to what actually transpired upon Plaintiff’s arrival thereat. [6] It is Plaintiff’s case that he was ordered to take a tractor wheel and paddle it for some distance. He alleged that he was further pressed down on that wheel and assaulted with a “ _lebetlela_ ” stick on the lower back. The Defendants deny the said assaults. They only admit the fact that they ordered the Plaintiff to paddle the wheel and also that he should do push-ups during interrogation. They were interrogating Plaintiff about his companion who was allegedly a soldier and was threatening a staff nurse and security guards at Mokhotlong hospital so they were requesting Plaintiff to disclose the names of the said soldier and he became uncooperative, so they alleged. [7] It is Plaintiff’s case further that after the assaults he was ordered out of the military base and immediately after he left they chased him with a military van to the premises of Mokhotlong hospital where he resided. He alleged that this was done in full view of members of the public as well as his colleagues and security officers deployed at the hospital. He testified that he felt humiliated by this act. The Defendants conversely denied these acts in their plea as well as through cross examination of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was extensively cross examined on the deficiencies in his testimony some of which he conceded to. [8] In his testimony, Plaintiff stated that he went to hospital the following day as he was peeing blood and had sustained injuries on the lower back. He testified that he was bleeding from the month and nose. His shoulder was dislocated, though he did not specify which shoulder that was. He tendered a medical report during his testimony and it was marked exhibit 1. Plaintiff then closed his case without leading any further evidence. ### **I****SSUE FOR****D****ETERMINATION** [9] The thorny issue that arises for determination by this Court at this stage is very narrow and it is whether the Plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence upon which this Court applying its mind reasonably to such evidence could or might find for him. Put differently, the issue is whether there is sufficient evidence relating to all the elements of the claim sought before this Court, _to wit_ , damages for pain and suffering as well as for _contumelia_. The question is “has Plaintiff made out a _prima facie_ case with the evidence led up to the stage when he closed his case?” I shall proceed to determine this issue herein below. ### **T****HE LAW ON ABSOLUTION FROM THE INSTANCE** [10] The purpose of a civil action in delict is to compensate the victim for the harm actually done.[1] It is for this reason that in a claim for damages a plaintiff is duty-bound to produce sufficient evidence to enable the Court to rule in his favor. [11] Rule 153 of the Rules of this Court provides for absolution from the instance procedure in the following terms: _(1) At the close of the case for the applicant, the respondent may apply for absolution from the instance …_ _…_ _(5) In an action in which any causes of action or parties have been joined in accordance with these rules, the presiding Judge may, at the conclusion of the trial give such judgement in favour of such of the parties as is or are entitled to relief**or grant absolution from the instance.**_ [12] The test for evaluating the evidence in determining whether to grant absolution from the instance has been laid down and analysed over the decades by Courts and scholars in this Kingdom and other jurisdictions. It is convenient at this stage to refer to instructive words of Steyn P. in **Matsoakeletse v. Klaas __** where he stated as follows: _[6] The credibility and reliability of this witness was not in issue at the time the application for absolution was made. The sole issue before the court was the sufficiency of the evidence and whether it satisfied the standard of proof required in terms of the test laid in our law. Case law in the Republic of South Africa has defined the duty of a court in evaluating evidence, when the plaintiff has closed his case and an application for a decree of absolution has been made, as follows:_ _“[W]hen absolution from the instance is sought at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the test to be applied is not whether the evidence led by the plaintiff established what would finally be required to be established, but whether there is evidence upon which a court, applying its mind reasonably to such evidence, could or might (not should, nor ought to) find for the plaintiff.**[2]**_ [13] I also find the writings of Herbstein & Van Winsen in their book _The Civil Practice of the High Courts of South Africa_ useful in defining this test in simpler terms. They write as follows: _The correct approach to an application for absolution at the end of a plaintiff’s case was stated by Harms JA in Gordon Llyod Page & Associates v Rivera (2001 (1) SA 88 at 92-93):_ _The test for absolution to be applied by a trial court at the end of a plaintiff’s case was formulated in Claude Neon Lights (SA) Ltd v Daniel 1976 (4) SA 403 (A) at 409G-H in these terms:_ _‘…(W)hen absolution from the instance is sought at the close of plaintiff’s case, the test to be applied is not whether the evidence led by plaintiff establishes what would finally be required to be established, but whether there is evidence upon which a Court, applying its mind reasonably to such evidence, could or might (not should, nor ought to) find for the plaintiff. (Gascoyne v Paul and Hunter 1917 TPD 170 at 173; Ruto Flour Mills (Pty) Ltd v Adelson (2) 1958 (4) SA 307 (T).’_ _This implies that a plaintiff has to make out a prima facie case – in the sense that there is evidence relating to all the elements of the claim – to survive absolution because without such evidence no Court could find for the plaintiff (Marine & Trade Insurance Co Ltd v. Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A) at 37G – 38A; Schmidt Bewysreg 4th ed at 91 – 2) …**[3]**_ [14] As shown above both Counsel submitted written submissions and have also accurately captured the test outlined above. It is important therefore to kick-start interrogation of the evidence led to ascertain whether it passes muster. It is important to evaluate whether Plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence which proves all the elements of his claim in order to survive absolution from the instance. **APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE TEST TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PLAINTIFF** [15] I have already shown in the background facts that Plaintiff was the sole testifier in these proceedings. He testified that on 8 May 2021 he was taken into custody by members of the Lesotho Defence Force. Further that upon arrival at the Bafali military base he was ordered to take a tractor wheel and paddle it for some distance. He alleged that he was further pressed down on that wheel and assaulted with a “ _lebetlela_ ” stick on the lower back. [16] It is Plaintiff’s case further that after the assaults, he was ordered out of the military base and immediately chased with a military van to the premises of Mokhotlong hospital where he resided. He alleged that this was done in full view of members of the public as well as his colleagues and security officers deployed at the hospital. He testified that he felt humiliated by this act. Plaintiff stated that he went to hospital the following day as he was peeing blood and had sustained injuries on the lower back. He testified that he was bleeding from the mouth and nose and that his shoulder was dislocated. He tendered a medical report during his testimony to corroborate the facts he alleged relating to the injuries he allegedly sustained. [17] It is important to highlight that the Defendants strenuously deny the said assaults as well as the allegation that he was chased with a military van in full view of residents. The denials were done both in their plea as well as during extensive cross examination Plaintiff was subjected to. The Defendants only admit the fact that they ordered him to paddle the wheel and also that he should do push-ups during interrogation. They contend that they were interrogating Plaintiff about the identity of his companion who was allegedly a soldier and was threatening a staff nurse and security guards at Mokhotlong hospital and that they did this while requesting Plaintiff to disclose the names of the said soldier and he became uncooperative. [18] In order to prove that he sustained injuries consequent to the assaults allegedly meted upon him, Plaintiff relied solely on the medical report (exhibit 1). He did not bother to call in the evidence of the doctor who examined him or to submit hospital records giving details of the alleged injuries. It will be recalled that the value of a medical report tendered by a plaintiff other than a medical practitioner who examined the patient and filled it, if tendered as evidence of the truth of what it asserts then it is hearsay because the truth in it depends on the credit of the medical practitioner.[4] In dealing with admissibility of medical records, the Supreme Court of South Africa in a judgment penned by His Lordship Molefe AJA in **Masibulele Rautini v. Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)** stated as follows: _[11] The contents of the hospital records and medical notes constituted hearsay evidence, and it is trite that hearsay evidence is prima facie inadmissible.____The discovery thereof by the appellant in terms of the rules of court does not make them admissible as evidence against the appellant, unless the documents could be admitted under one or other of the common law exceptions to the hearsay rule._ _[12] It is common cause that the respondent’s counsel made no application for any of the hearsay evidence to be admitted in terms of s.3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. In_ ___the circumstances, the full court’s finding that material differences existed between the appellant’s version and the medical records regarding where he fell from the train, the cause of his fall and his first lucid recollection after the fall, was erroneous. The full court’s reliance on hearsay evidence in that regard amounts to a material misdirection that vitiates its ultimate finding on the outcome of the appeal that was before it.**[5]**_ [19] As shown above, in this case Plaintiff relied heavily on the medical form and sought to tender it for its testimonial value without calling the doctor who examined him and filled it; thus, it remains hearsay without any probative value. Reliance on the medical form is problematic for a further reason that under cross examination Plaintiff conceded that it was not filled on the same date that he was examined by the doctor, which is 9 May 2021. It was filled sometime later, on 1 June 2021. He alleged that its contents were copied by the doctor from some hospital records which he did not produce in evidence in order for this Court to verify their accuracy as against the medical form. What is ludicrous is that when asked, under cross examination, why he did not bring those records he responded that the Court can approach the hospital to get the records itself. What he completely forgot is the fact that he bears the onus of proving his case as per the case of **Monate v. ‘Mefane**[6]**__** wherein the court quoted the sentiments in **Botsane v. Commissioner of Police.**[7]**** [20] Furthermore, Plaintiff conceded that at the time the medical form was filled, he had healed fully. No ears and nose bleeding were experienced. The allegedly dislocated shoulder had also healed. Surprisingly, Plaintiff was allegedly assaulted on 7 May 2021 and he was handed the medical form (exhibit 1) on 9 May 2021 with a request that the doctor must examine him and submit his report on the reverse side of the form. On Plaintiff’s testimony he was examined by the doctor on the same day (9 May 2021) but the form was only filled on 1 June 2021 when Plaintiff had long been discharged from hospital and had healed. In evidence, Plaintiff testified that he was hospitalized for only one day. He testified that he was released the following day at his own request. There was no explanation whatsoever for this lapse of some twenty-two (22) or so days between the doctor’s examination and the filling of exhibit 1. Plaintiff closed his case without this explanation despite the fact that he was taken to task during cross examination about this apparent omission or abnormally. [21] It is interesting to note further that on exhibit 1, the doctor has not indicated on the drawings where Plaintiff had sustained the injuries he spoke about in his testimony, that is, the positioning of the injuries so that the Court could ascertain whether they are in line with the testimony. Furthermore, on the space provided for the doctor to report on injuries there is somewhere he recorded “head injury” and then put a question mark in front of that record. It is unclear to this Court what the question mark means or implies. This jigsaw puzzle remained in the evidence even at the close of Plaintiff’s case because he elected not to call the doctor to testify though, admittedly, he is still available. It is only the doctor who performed the examination and filled the medical form who could explain and/or answer all these questions that this Court is asking itself. [22] In his testimony, Plaintiff indicated that this doctor, who examined him, is still available. As to why he decided to close his case without leading his evidence which is crucial in these proceedings, is still a mystery. I am inclined to draw an adverse inference against Plaintiff for this omission. I am fortified in this finding by the sentiments of Gauntlett JA in **Lesotho Bank v. Khabo** where he stated as follows: _On the other hand, the Court is not so bound to award damages in the case where evidence is readily available to the claimant but he or she has not adduced it. In such a case the court ought to order absolution from the instance.**[8]**_ [23] In any event, it has been authoritatively held that the Court should be extremely chary to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness unless that evidence is clear and satisfactory in every material respect. Hence the Court will draw an adverse inference where a party fails to call evidence of other available witness on a crucial issue before Court. I have already shown that Plaintiff could not answer the questions relating to what was recorded in exhibit 1. His evidence was not clear in all material respects of his claim for pain and suffering. There are available witnesses who could reinforce his case but Plaintiff decided to close his case without leading their evidence.[9] I therefore find that his evidence is insufficient to prove the elements of the first head of his claim. [24] In so far as the second claim of _contumelia_ is concerned, the law is very clear that there has to be evidence of acts done by the defendant which have a humiliating and degrading effect on the plaintiff as stated in cases such as **Senior Inspector Sepinare Masupha v. Trooper Nyolohelo Tae**[10]**__** and**Mamatshele v. Minister of Police & Others**.[11] In his supplementary written submissions, Advocate Motsoehli referred this Court to the instructive sentiments expressed by the Court in **Mamatshele** ’s case (supra) where it was stated as follows: _Contumelia refers to a feeling of injustice experienced by an individual whose bodily integrity or dignity has been wrongfully and intentionally infringed upon. It goes beyond mere insult, encompassing a broader sense of personal violation. When such infringement occurs, the affected person may pursue legal action through the actio injuriarum, seeking satisfaction for the harm done to their personality. The damages awarded in such cases are primarily aimed at addressing the injured feelings and are determined based on what is considered just and equitable._ [25] _In casu_ , unlike in the **_Tae_** matter (supra) Plaintiff asserts that the incident of being chased by the members of the Lesotho Defence Force with a vehicle was witnessed by many people since it allegedly occurred in broad daylight and in full view of the residents. However, the difficulty with Plaintiff’s case is that he did not bother to adduce evidence of even one of the residents to corroborate his version of events especially when the incident was denied by the Defendants right from inception of the case. It will be recalled that the occurrence of the incident was denied both in the Defendants’ Plea as well as during cross examination of Plaintiff. In the **_Tae_** matter the plaintiff adduced evidence of two female police officers who witnessed through the window as he was assaulted and insulted by the Defendant who was his senior in rank. [26] As already stated above, in this case Plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence with which this Court might give judgement in his favour as per the case of **National University of Lesotho v. Thabane**.[12] It came out clearly in his testimony that there was available evidence in the form of eyewitnesses as well as medical evidence which could be adduced by the doctor but he elected to close his case without adducing this pivotal evidence. ### **C****ONCLUSION AND ORDER** [27] In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds that Plaintiff in this matter has failed to adduce sufficient evidence which raises a credible possibility of this Court finding that (1) he was assaulted by members of the Lesotho Defence Force in the manner described in the pleadings and amplified by his sole testimony which evidence would sustain his claim for pain and suffering. The only concession made by the Defendants is that they made him do push-ups but even this concession was disputed by Plaintiff in his own oral evidence. He testified that he refused to do the push-ups so they assaulted him. (2) That he suffered any damages which would accrue from his _contumelia_ claim. I am therefore of the view that it is legally appropriate and in the interests of justice that absolution from the instance is granted. [28] The principle as regards costs in our courts is that costs follow the result. However, _in casu_ , it cannot be seriously found that Plaintiff’s case was wholly unmeritorious. It remains unclear why members of the Lesotho Defence Force took charge of the investigations of the alleged criminal behaviour of Plaintiff and the person who was masquerading as a medical doctor while the police were still available in the area to do the job. The Defendants conceded that members of the Lesotho Defence Force took Plaintiff into their custody for interrogation when they could have reported the matter to the nearest police station for further investigation. [29] Clearly in this matter, Plaintiff’s claims suffer this fate due to the fact that he failed to adduce sufficient evidence which this Court might give judgement in his favour. There are no signs of frivolity in his case. Hence this Court, having carefully considered and applied its mind to the facts, finds it fair and equitable, in its judicious discretion, not to mulct him with costs. This case is distinguishable from cases such as **Matsoakeletse v. Klass (supra)** and**Webb and Others v. Botha.**[13]**** [30] Accordingly, I make the following order: 1. The Defendants are absolved from the instance; 2. There is no order as to costs. **___________________________** **Dr. I. Shale J** **Judge of the High Court** For Plaintiff: Advocate L. Motsoehli Instructed by: RARALE Attorneys For Defendants: Advocate T. Molise Instructed by: Attorney General’s Chambers * * * [1] See: _National University of Lesotho v. Thabane_ C of A (CIV) No. 3/2008 [[2008] LSCA 26](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2008/26) (17 October 2008) at paragraph 23 [2] _Matsoakeletse v. Klaas_ LAC (2007 – 2008) 184 at 188 [3] M Dendy & C Loots (eds) (2022) _Herbstein & Van Winsen:_ _The Civil Practice of the High Courts of South Africa_ 920 – 921 [4] See: _Rex v. Miller_ 1939 AD 106 at 119 [5] _Masibulele Rautini v. Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)_(Case No. 853/2020) [[2021] ZASCA 158](/akn/za/judgment/zasca/2021/158) (8 November 2021) [6] _Monate v. ‘Mefane_ C of A (CIV) No.19/2017 [[2018] LSCA 11](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2018/11) (7 December 2018) at paragraph 16 [7] _Botsane v. Commissioner of Police_ C of A (CIV) No.23/2011 at page 6 [8] _Lesotho Bank v. Khabo_(2000-2004) LAC 91 [9] See: _Grau Francois v. Levin Van Zyl_[[2021] ZAGPJHC 559](/akn/za-gp/judgment/zagpjhc/2021/559) per Molahlehi J at paragraph 18; _Munster Estates (Pty) Ltd v. Killarney Hills (Pty) Ltd_ 1979 (1) SA 621(AD) and _R v. Mokoena_ 1932 OPD 79 at p.80 per De Villiers JP**.** [10] _Senior Inspector Sepinare Masupha v. Trooper Nyolohelo Tae_(C of A (CIV) No. 13/2013 [[2014] LSCA 13](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2014/13) (17 April 2014 [11] _Mamatshele v. Minister of Police & _Others [[2024] ZAGPJHC 795](/akn/za-gp/judgment/zagpjhc/2024/795)). [12] _National University of Lesotho v. Thabane_ C of A (CIV) No. 3/2008) [[2008] LSCA 26](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2008/26) (17 October 2008 at paragraph 23. [13] _Webb and Others v. Botha_ 1980 (3) SA 666 (N). #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >