Officer Commanding Roma Police and Others v Khoete and Another (C of A (CIV) 70 of 2011) [2012] LSCA 21 (27 April 2012)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO C OF A (CIV) No. 70/ 2011 In the m a tter b etw een: OFFICER COMMANDING ROMA POLICE TRP TSOLO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1ST APPELLANT 2ND APPELLANT 3RD APPELLANT 4TH APPELLANT AND JOSIASE ROBOTSE KHOETE 'MATSABO KHOETE 1ST RESPONDENT 2ND RESPONDENT CORAM: RAMODIBEDI, P SCOTT, JA FARLAM , JA Hea rd: Delivered: 19 APRIL 2012 27 APRIL 2012 Summa ry Self d efenc e – mea ns used unrea so na b le a nd exc essive – d a ma g es fo r p a in a nd suffering – the need to p rovid e a rea so ned b a sis fo r a mo unt a wa rd ed – c la im fo r “ emo tio na l sho c k” - wha t ha s to b e esta b lished fo r suc h a c la im – c la im fo r “ lo ss o f c o mfo rt” no t rec overa b le in Aq uilia n a c tio n. JUDGMENT SCOTT, JA [1] The a p p ella nts w ere the d efend a nts in two c o nsolid a ted a c tions in the Hig h Co urt. Both a ro se o ut o f a shooting inc id ent w hic h oc c urred on 27 Aug ust 2008 a t Rom a . The p la intiff in the one w a s M r Jo sia se Khoete who sued fo r d a m a g es in c o nseq uenc e o f a firea rm w o und he susta ined in the leg . The p la intiff in the sec ond a c tion wa s his sister-in-la w , M rs 'Ma tsa b o Kho ete, w ho sued fo r d a m a g es a s a result o f the d ea th of her husb a nd , Mr Lethena Kho ete, w ho w a s the b ro ther o f Jo sia se. It is c o mm on c a use tha t b o th w ere shot b y Detec tive troo p er Tsolo , the sec ond a p p ella nt, w ho a t a ll m a teria l tim es w a s a c ting in the c o urse a nd sc o p e of his em p loyment with the third a p p ella nt, the Com missioner of Polic e. Tso lo so ug ht to justify the sho oting on the g ro und tha t he w a s a c ting in self d efenc e. It is c lea r tha t the onus w a s on the a p p ella nts, the d efend a nts in the c o urt b elow , to p rove tha t the sho oting w a s justified a nd tha t the fo rc e used wa s rea so na b le a nd c om m ensura te with the a lleg ed a g g ression of the tw o w ho w ere sho t. See Ma ba so v Felix 1981 (3) SA 865 (A). The c onsolid a ted tria l w a s hea rd b y Ma ja ra J w ho found tha t the onus ha d not b een d isc ha rg ed a nd a w a rd ed d a m a g es to b o th p la intiffs. The a p p ea l is a g a inst b o th the find ing tha t the shooting w a s no t justifie d a nd a g a inst the d a m a g es a w a rd ed . [2] Three witnesses testified on b eha lf o f the resp ond ents. They w ere the first resp ond ent, Mr Josia se Khoete (PW1), M r Antone Ma ime who w a s a neig hb o ur (PW2) a nd the sec o nd resp ond ent, M rs 'Ma tsa b o Kho ete (PW3). Their a c c o unt o f wha t oc c urred , in b ro a d term s, w a s the follo wing . While the three m en, Jo sia se, Antone a nd Lethena (to w ho m I sha ll refer a s the d ec ea sed ) w ere in the fo rec o urt o f Jo sia se’ s ho use w o rking on o r exa mining a mo to r c a r, they hea rd the so und o f g un fire. Jo sia se insisted they w ere merely exa mining the vehic le; Antone sa id they w ere wo rking on it. The sig nific a nc e o f this d ifferenc e will b ec o me a p p a rent la ter. They loo ked in the d irec tion o f the shoo ting a nd sa w Tsolo a d va nc ing on Tha b iso Kho ete (a yo ung rela tive o f Jo sia se) w ho m they d esc rib ed a s “ retrea ting ” in suc h a m a nner a s to b e fa c ing the a d va nc ing Tso lo . Ac c o rd ing to Jo sia se, Tso lo w a s firing shots into the g ro und in front of the retrea ting Tha b iso . Anto ne, o n the o ther ha nd , sa id Tsolo w a s firing in the a ir. They b oth testified tha t Jo sia se w ent o ut into the ro a d a nd c a lled to Tha b iso to stop , to a void b eing hurt. They sa id tha t w hen Jo sia se w a s a few p a c es b ehind Tsolo , the la tter fo r no a p p a rent rea son, turned a ro und a nd shot Jo sia se in the leg . The d ec ea sed then a p p ro a c hed Tsolo a nd wa nted to kno w w hy Tsolo ha s sho t Jo sia se. Tso lo ’ s resp onse w a s sim p ly to shoo t him too . Tso lo a nd the p olic ema n with him , Tro o p er Motseki, thereup on c ontinued their p ursuit o f Tha b iso . They d id not return to the sc ene b ut the p olic em a n, Tro o p er Nyoo ko , w ho w a s the d river of the vehic le in w hic h the three p olic e m en ha d c om e a nd who ha d rem a ined in the vehic le, d rove the two injured m en to ho sp ita l. On a rriva l the d ec ea sed w a s found to b e d ea d . [3] Mrs 'Ma tsa b o Kho ete testified tha t she w a s on her w a y hom e w hen, o n hea ring g unfire, she sa w Tso lo a d va nc ing o n Tha b iso who w a s “ retrea ting ” in the sa me ma nner a s d esc rib ed b y Antone a nd Jo sia se. Tsolo , she sa id , w a s firing into the g ro und . She sa id tha t a s she entered her ya rd , they p a ssed b y. She then o b served Jo sia se em erg e from his ya rd a nd c a ll to Tha b iso to stop , w hereup on Tsolo turned a round a nd shot him. Her husb a nd , the d ec ea sed , then a lso a rrived on the sc ene a nd w a nted a n exp la na tion for the shoo ting of Jo sia se. Tsolo ’ s resp onse, she sa id , w a s to shoo t him a s w ell. All three witnesses d enied tha t either Jo sia se o r the d ec ea sed w a s a rm ed with a ny so rt o f wea p on. [4] Tso lo w a s the o nly witness to testify o n b eha lf o f the a p p ella nts. The other p olic em a n, Motseki, w a s no t c a lled . Tsolo sa id tha t on the m o rning in q uestio n he w ent with Tro o p ers Motseki a nd Nyo oko to the ho use w here Tha b iso (w ho m he d esc rib ed a s a “ b oy” ) lived with his p a rents. Nyo oko d rove the p olic e vehic le. The p urp o se of g oing there w a s to a rrest Tha b iso on a c ha rg e o f theft. He a nd Motseki a lig hted fro m the vehic le a nd a p p ro a c hed Tha b iso . He sa id tha t he then o b served tha t Motseki ha d not b ro ug ht ha nd c uffs a nd he a c c o rd ing ly sent him b a c k to the vehic le to fetc h them . When he rea c hed Tha b iso , the la tter ha d a tro w el in his ha nd s. He info rm ed Tha b iso tha t he w a s a rresting him w hereup o n Tha b iso ra ised his tro w el in a threa tening m a nner. Tsolo d rew his firea rm a nd o rd ered Tha b iso to p ut the tro w el into a wheelb a rro w tha t w a s next to him a nd m ove a w a y fro m it. Tha b iso d id a s he w a s told . Tso lo sa id tha t he then g ra b b ed Tha b iso with his left ha nd . The firea rm wa s in his rig ht ha nd . He lo oked b a c k to see Motseki a p p ro a c hing with the ha nd c uffs. As he d id so Tha b iso b roke free a nd fled . He sa id tha t he ra n a fter Tha b iso firing tw o shots in the a ir to “ w a rn” him . As he a p p ro a c hed Jo sia se’ s ho use, Jo sia se c a m e o ut into the ro a d a nd b lo c ked his p a th, sa ying “ you c a nnot d o this to tha t p erson” , m ea ning Tha b iso . Tso lo sa id he told Jo sia se to g et o ut o f his w a y a nd p ushed him a sid e, using his left ha nd . Jo sia se resp ond ed b y hitting him on his left ha nd with a m eta l ro d whic h w a s used fo r ja c king up vehic les. At the sa m e time som eb o d y g ra b b ed his jersey fro m b ehind a nd p ulled him b a c kw a rd s. Jo sia se then struc k him a b lo w on the rig ht ha nd . Tsolo sa id he fired two w a rning shots in the a ir b ut when the p erson b ehind him p ulled his jersey even ha rd er he fea red tha t he wo uld b e a ssa ulted o r even killed . It w a s then tha t he shot Jo sia se in the leg a nd turned a ro und a nd shot the p erson b ehind him who turned o ut to b e the d ec ea sed . He a nd Motseki then c ontinued their p ursuit o f Tha b iso whom they w ere una b le to a rrest. He testified tha t on the sa me d a y he c onsulted a d oc to r with reg a rd to the injury he ha d susta ined to his left ha nd a nd , in sup p o rt o f his a ssertion, ha nd ed in a m ed ic a l fo rm issued b y the Mounted Polic e Servic e a nd c o mp leted b y a d o c to r. Ac c o rd ing to the rep o rt the d oc to r c ha ra c terised the injury a s “ severe” . The rep o rt b o re the sta m p o f the p olic e d a ted 27 Aug ust 2008. [5] Ma ja ra J fo und the version of the resp ond ents to b e the m o re p ro b a b le of the tw o c onflic ting versions. She fo und it hig hly imp rob a b le tha t Jo sia se w o uld ha ve a tta c ked a n a rm ed p olic e o ffic er a nd d rew a n a d verse inferenc e a g a inst the a p p ella nts fo r their fa ilure to c a ll troo p er Motseki a s a witness. She o b served tha t the resp ond ents a nd Ma ine c o rrob o ra ted ea c h other on m a teria l p oints a nd tha t she c o uld find no g o o d rea son fo r d isb elieving them . As fa r a s the med ic a l rep o rt p ro d uc ed b y Tsolo w a s c onc erned , she c onsid ered it not to b e c onc lusive b ec a use it w a s no t the o rig ina l (it w a s a p ho to c op y) a nd “ b ec a use m o re tha n one inferenc e [c ould ] b e d ra w n a s to ho w he c o uld ha ve susta ined the injury.” [6] Co unsel fo r the a p p ella nts sub mitted tha t, o n the c o ntra ry, the p ro b a b ilities fa vo ured Tsolo ’ s version ra ther tha n tha t o f the resp ond ents. I a g ree. It w o uld , no d o ub t, ha ve b een unwise fo r Jo sia se to ha ve a ttem p ted to imp ed e the a rm ed Tsolo in his q uest to a rrest the fleeing Tha b iso , b ut it is no t imp rob a b le tha t he sho uld ha ve a ttem p ted to d o so . Wha t is m o st imp rob a b le is tha t Tsolo w o uld ha ve sho t Jo sia se fo r no b etter rea son tha n tha t the la tter w a s a ttem p ting to a ssist Tso lo b y c a lling o n Tha b iso to stop . Simila rly, o ne m a y a sk w hy Tsolo wo uld ha ve sho t the d ec ea sed fo r simp ly inq uiring why he ha d sho t Jo sia se. The resp o nd ents’ version ma kes no sense. There a re a lso other unsa tisfa c to rily fea tures. All the three witnesses fo r the resp ond ents d esc rib ed how Tha b iso ha d “ retrea ted ” so a s to ha ve fa c ed the a d va nc ing Tso lo . Jo sia se insisted tha t Tha b iso d id not run. But if tha t w ere the c a se, Tsolo w o uld ha ve ha d no d iffic ulty in c a tc hing up to a nd a p p rehend ing Tha b iso . Jo sia se m a d e a p oint o f sa ying tha t they w ere m erely exa mining the mo to r c a r. Antone sa id they w ere a c tua lly wo rking o n it. The la tter version wo uld rend er mo re likely the version of Tsolo tha t Jo sia se w a s a rm ed with a m eta l ro d of the kind use d to ja c k up a m oto r vehic le. Ag a in, the lea rned jud g e d ismissed the m ed ic a l rep o rt p ro d uc ed b y Tsolo c onfirming the injury to his ha nd he ha d susta ined simp ly o n the b a sis tha t the p ho to sta tic c o p y w a s not the o rig ina l a nd tha t he c o uld ha ve susta ined the injury in som e o ther w a y. Yet, the med ic a l rep o rt b o re the d a te sta mp o f 27 Aug ust 2008. Tha t he susta ined suc h a n injury o n the sa me d a y in some o ther w a y wo uld ha ve b een a mo st fo rtuito us c oinc id enc e. [7] But tha t is not the end of the ma tter. Even on Tsolo ’ s own version the shoo ting o f Jo sia se a nd the d ec ea sed w a s in my view c lea rly a n overrea c tion to the situa tion in whic h he fo und him self. It w o uld ha ve b een o b vious to him tha t Jo sia se a nd the d ec ea sed w ere intent o n d oing no m o re tha n o b struc ting him in his p ursuit o f Tha b iso . Jo sia se, he sa id , struc k him a b lo w on the ha nd only a fter he ha d p ushed Jo sia se a sid e. The d e c ea sed d id no mo re tha n p ull his jersey fro m b ehind to imp ed e his p ro g ress. This w a s ha rd ly life - threa tening . All tha t w a s req uired w ere a few w o rd s to exp la in why he wa nted to a rrest the yo uth. If Jo sia se a nd the d ec ea sed ha d then p ersisted in their effo rts to p revent him from p ursuing Tha b iso he w o uld ha ve b een free to return with reinfo rc em ents a nd a rrest them fo r o b struc ting a p olic em a n in the c ourse of his d uties. All the p ersons involved w ere kno wn to him a nd he knew w here they lived . The shoo ting of the two w a s in m y view unrea so na b le in the c irc um sta nc es a nd o ug ht to ha ve b een a void ed . It follow s tha t Tso lo w a s neg lig ent in ta king the a c tion he d id a nd the a p p ella nts a re a c c o rd ing ly lia b le fo r suc h d a m a g es a s the resp ond ents w ere a b le to p rove. [8] Jo sia se Kho ete c la imed d a m a g es in a tota l a m ount o f M310.000 m a d e up a s follow s: “ (a ) M209 000 fo r p a in a nd suffering (b ) M1000 fo r med ic a l exp enses (c ) M1000 000 fo r lo ss o f future ea rning s.” No evid enc e w a s a d d uc ed in sup p o rt of the c la im s in (b ) a nd (c ) a nd they w ere rig htly d ismissed b y the C o urt a q uo . As fa r a s the c la im fo r p a in a nd suffering is c onc erned , the only evid enc e led wa s tha t Jo sia se sp ent a b o ut two to three w eeks in ho sp ita l a nd tha t he still exp erienc es so m e p a in a t times. He d esc rib ed the initia l p a in w hen sho t a s “ not tha t serio us” . There w a s no m ed ic a l evid enc e; there w a s no evid enc e a s to the na ture a nd extent o f the wo und ; there w a s no evid enc e o f the na ture of the trea tm ent he und erwent, sa ve tha t he w a s ho sp ita lised , a nd there wa s no evid enc e o f the severity of the p a in he suffered sa ve a s d esc rib ed a b ove. [9] The lea rned jud g e referred to the d iffic ulty a ssoc ia ted with a ssessing a n a m ount to b e a wa rd ed fo r p a in a nd suffering ; the need to b e fa ir to b oth p a rties; the need tha t like injuries rec eive like c om p ensa tion, a nd c onc lud ed : “ Bea ring a ll these in mind I a m o f the view tha t the a mo unt o f M50 000 wo uld b e a fa ir o ne to b o th the p la intiff a nd the d efend a nts a ll thing s c o nsid ered .” But the jud g e g a ve no ind ic a tion a s to ho w she a rrived a t the sum o f M50 000. It is a p p ro p ria te to rep ea t w ha t w a s sa id b y this Co urt in Comma nder, Lesotho Defence Force a nd Others v Tlhoriso Letsie C of Defence A (CIV) 28/ 09, d elivered o n 22 Oc tob er a nd a s yet unrep o rted , a t p a ra 15 “ [15] It is well esta b lished tha t ea c h c a se must b e d ec id ed o n its o wn uniq ue c irc umsta nc es a nd tha t the tria l jud g e ha s a wid e d isc retio n to a w a rd wha t he o r she in tho se c irc umsta nc es c o nsid ers to b e a fa ir a nd a d eq ua te c o m p ensa tio n. No netheless, while it is no d o ub t true tha t no two c a ses a re p rec isely the sa me , g uid a nc e must b e so ug ht fro m p a st a w a rd s a nd in the a b senc e o f a wa rd s in c a ses c o nsid ered to b e c o mp a ra b le reg a rd sho uld a t lea st b e ha d to wha t Po tg ieter JA d esc rib ed in Protea Assura nce Co Ltd v La mb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A) a t 536 B a s ‘ the g enera l p a ttern o f p revio us a wa rd s’ . It is a lso imp o rta nt fo r the tria l c o urt to p ro vid e so me rea so ned b a sis fo r the a mo unt a w a rd e d in resp ec t o f g enera l d a m a g e s, ho wever d iffic ult tha t ma y b e (see Roa d Accident Fund v Morunga 2003 (5) SA 164 (SCA) a t 172 D p a ra 33.)” [10] In view o f the p a uc ity o f info rm a tion in the evid enc e reg a rd ing Jo sia se’ s injury a nd its trea tment, the q uest fo r c om p a ra b le a w a rd s ha s b een no ea sy ta sk. Ho w ever I ha ve b een a b le to d erive som e a ssista nc e from the a wa rd m a d e in Field v Roa d Accident Fund rep o rted in Co rb ett a nd Honey: The Qua ntum of Da m a g es in Bo d ily a nd Fa ta l Injury c a ses Vo l 5 E4 – 1. In this c a se a n a d ult m a le who w a s kno c ked d ow n b y a mo to r vehic le susta ined a c om p o und fra c ture o f the left tib ia a nd fib ula a nd und erw ent a n immed ia te o p era tion fo r the insertio n o f a p in. He w a s d isc ha rg ed fro m ho sp ita l a fter o ne w eek b ut rea d mitted a b o ut a m onth la ter fo r a b one g ra fting p ro c ed ure. He w a s d isc ha rg ed 10 d a ys la ter on c rutc hes a nd with a p la ster o f Pa ris exo skeleto n whic h ha d to b e w o rn fo r a b o ut 6 months. He susta ined som e w a sting of the q ua d ric ep s m usc le, a sw elling o f the left foo t a nd he c ontinued to suffer p a in d uring c old w ea ther. He w a s a w a y fro m w o rk fo r a b o ut 11 months. It w a s a ntic ip a ted tha t ultima tely his rec overy wo uld b e virtua lly c o mp lete a nd he w ould b e left with no p erma nent d isa b ility. The c a se w a s d ec id ed b y a n a rb itra to r who , a fter referring to a numb er o f p revio us a w a rd s, d etermined the p la intiff’ s g enera l d a m a g es in the sum of M22 000. The a w a rd w a s how ever ma d e on 8 Sep temb er 1999. Ba sed o n the infla tion ta b les rep ro d uc ed in Co rb ett a nd Honey’ s w o rk, the a w a rd in to d a y’ s term s w o uld b e a little mo re tha n d o ub le tha t a mo unt, ie a b o ut R45 000. [11] It will b e imm ed ia tely a p p a rent tha t the injury a nd its seq uela e in the Field c a se w ere to a c onsid era b le d eg ree mo re severe tha n tho se suffered b y Jo sia se. This is p a rtic ula rly so ha ving reg a rd to the p a uc ity o f info rma tion p resented to the Co urt in the insta nt c a se. Ha d the ma tter b een hea rd in South Afric a it seem s to me tha t a n a p p ro p ria te a w a rd w o uld ha ve b een a fig ure so mew ha t less tha n ha lf the a mo unt a w a rd ed in the Field c a se, a fter m a king d ue a llo wa nc e fo r infla tion. But som e a llo w a nc e m ust a lso b e m a d e fo r the d iffering ec onomic c ond itions in the two c o untries. In the result, the a mo unt fo r p a in a nd suffering tha t I w o uld ha ve a w a rd ed is M15 000.00. The d isp a rity b etw een this a m o unt a nd the a m o unt d etermined b y the C o urt a q uo is suc h a s to entitle this Co urt to interfere with the a w a rd a nd the a p p ea l a g a inst the d a m a g es a w a rd ed m ust a c c o rd ing ly b e up held . [12] I turn no w to the d a ma g es a w a rd ed to 'Ma tsa b o Khoete. She c la imed M1, 000.000 fo r “ emotiona l sho c k” a nd M1,000.000 fo r “ lo ss of c o mfo rt” . She w a s a w a rd ed M60 000 fo r the fo rmer a nd M80 000 fo r the la tter. [13] The c la im fo r “ em otiona l sho c k” (m o re c om monly referred to a s “ nervo us shoc k” ) una c c o mp a nied b y p hysic a l injury to the c la ima nt ha s b een the sub jec t of three lea d ing jud g m ents in the Co urt o f Ap p ea l in So uth Afric a . They a re: Bester v Commercial Union Versekeringsma a tska ppy va n SA Bpk 1973 (1) SA 769 (A); Ba rna rd v Sa nta m Bpk 1999 (1) SA 202 (A), a nd Roa d Accident Fund v Sa uls 2002 (2) SA 55 (SCA). These c a ses esta b lish tha t fo r suc h a c la im to suc c eed tw o req uirem ents m ust b e sa tisfied . First, the c la ima nt m ust b e sho wn to ha ve suffered som e id entifia b le p syc hia tric injury o r illness a nd sec o nd , the ha rm must ha ve b een rea sona b ly fo reseea b le ha ving reg a rd in p a rtic ula r to the rela tionship b etween the c la ima nt who susta ined the p syc hia tric injury a nd the p erson who se injury o r d ea th g a ve rise to the c la ima nt’ s injury. In Ba rna rd, the c o urt a t 208 J to 209 A emp ha sised tha t the term “ nervo us shoc k” (o r “ em otiona l shoc k” ) w a s a mislea d ing term tha t la c ked p syc hia tric c ontent a nd tha t the rea l q uestion w a s w hether the c la im a nt ha d b een sho wn to ha ve susta ined a n id entifia b le p syc hia tric injury. It w a s this req uirem ent tha t a nsw ered the so -c a lled “ flood g a te a rg um ent” ra ised b y tho se w ho c ontend ed tha t suc h a c la im should not b e a c tiona b le. The c o urt a t 216 E to F no ted tha t a s a rule p syc hia tric evid enc e wo uld b e req uired to esta b lish tha t the c la ima nt ha d ind eed susta ined a n id entifia b le p syc hia tric injury. [14] In the p resent c a se the only evid enc e to sup p o rt the c la im fo r “ emotiona l sho c k” w a s tha t of 'Ma tsa b o Kho ete herself to the effec t tha t a t som e sta g e sho rtly a fter witnessing the shoo ting she a p p ea rs to ha ve fa inted . Ho w ever, she rec overed in time to b e a b le to a c c o mp a ny her husb a nd to ho sp ita l. There wa s no p syc hia tric evid enc e a nd her evid enc e w a s c lea rly insuffic ient to esta b lish her c la im . The a p p ea l a g a inst the a w a rd fo r em otio na l shoc k m ust a c c o rd ing ly b e up held . [15] In sup p o rt of her c la im fo r “ lo ss of c o mfo rt” 'Ma tsa b o Kho ete testified tha t the lo ss o f her husb a nd ha d d ep rived her of the love a nd c a re he p rovid ed a nd , a s she p ut in it, “ a should er to c ry on” . There w a s no c la im fo r p a trimonia l lo ss. The c o urt a q uo relied on tw o c a ses in sup p o rt o f its a w a rd o f M80 000. They w ere Viviers v Killia n 1927 AD 449 a nd a d ec ision of the Sup rem e Co urt of Ca lifornia , Rodriguez v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 12 Cal 3d 382 (1974). [16] In Viviers v Killia n the d efend a nt ha d c o mmitted a d ultery with the p la intiff’ s wife. The p la intiff’ s sub seq uent c la im fo r d a m a g es fo r c ontum elia w a s up held . The d ec ision is c lea rly d isting uisha b le. The p la intiff’ s a c tion w a s the a c tio n injuria rum . The lia b ility o f the a p p ella nt in the p resent c a se is fo r neg lig enc e und er the Aq uilia n a c tion. A c la im fo r lo ss of c om fo rt, a s o p p o sed to a c la im fo r p a trimonia l lo ss o f sup p o rt, is not a c tiona b le und er the Aq uilia n a c tion. This w a s m a d e c lea r in Union Government (Minister of Ra ilwa ys a nd Ha rbours) v Wa rneke 1911 AD 657 a t 662 where Lo rd d e Villiers CJ exp la ined the d istinc tio n a s follow s:- “ As to the lo ss o f ‘ the c o mfo rt a nd so c iety’ o f the p la intiff’ s w ife, I kno w o f no rule o r p rinc ip le of o ur la w und er whic h suc h a lo ss c o nstitutes a g ro und fo r a w a rd ing d a m a g es in a n a c tio n b a sed up o n the d efend a nt’ s neg lig enc e. Referenc e wa s m a d e in the Co urt b elo w to the Ca p e c a se o f Bic c a rd v Bic c a rd a nd Fryer (9 C. S. C. p 473) [a c a se relied up o n in Viviers v Killia n sup ra ] where it wa s sa id tha t the c o mp lete lo ss o f the wife’ s so c iety c o nstitutes the ma in element in the estima tio n o f d a ma g es, b ut tha t w a s a c a se in whic h d a ma g es were c la imed fro m a n a d ulterer fo r the injury d o ne to , a nd d isho no r b ro ug ht up o n, the husb a nd b y the a d ultery with his wife. As wa s sa id b y Pro fesso r Melius d e Villiers in his no tes to Vo et 47, 10, 18, in the a c tio n fo r injury retrib utio n is so ug ht b y wa y o f a p ec unia ry p ena lty fo r the b enefit o f the sufferer, in o rd er to sa tisfy his injured feeling s. It is who lly d ifferent in a n a c tio n found ed o n neg lig enc e.” The d istinc tion w a s a g a in reitera ted in Nochomowitz v Sa nta m Insura nce Co. Ltd 1972 (1) SA 718 (TPD) w here in a n a c tion fo r d a m a g es fo r lo ss o f sup p o rt a rising from the d ea th o f the p la intiff’ s husb a nd , Botha AJ (a s he then w a s) sa id the follo wing a t 721 B: “ My c o nc lusio n o n this p a rt o f the c a se , therefo re , is tha t in o ur la w a wid o w ha s no rig ht to c la im c o mp ensa tio n fo r lo ss o f so c ia l a d va nta g es flo wing fro m the d ea th o f her husb a nd where suc h lo ss is no t o f a p a trimo nia l na ture. Ac c o rd ing ly the p la intiff’ s c la im fo r d a m a g es und er this hea d must b e d ismissed .” [17] In the Ca lifo rnia n c a se of Rodriguez v Bethlehem Steel Corp, sup ra , w hic h w a s the other c a se relied up on b y the C o urt a q uo , the c o urt a w a rd ed d a m a g es fo r lo ss o f c onso rtium , ie, fo r “ lo ss of c onjug a l fello w ship a nd sexua l rela tions” , to a p la intiff who se husb a nd , a s a result of the neg lig enc e o f the d efend a nt’ s serva nts, ha d suffered g rievo us b o d ily injuries resulting in his b ec oming a lifelong inva lid a nd b ed rid d en fo r a g rea t d ea l o f tim e. The jud g ment w a s innova tive in Ca lifo rnia to the extent tha t p reviously a n a w a rd fo r lo ss o f c onso rtium ha d b een g ra nted o nly in the c a se o f the d ea th o f a husb a nd . [18] It is c lea r from the m a jo rity op inion o f Mosk J tha t the a w a rd of d a m a g es fo r lo ss o f c onso rtium w a s fo und ed on a med ley of c onflic ting p rec ed ents. In so m e Sta tes in the USA the lia b ility fo r suc h a lo ss is no t rec o g nised . In others the lia b ility is g overned b y leg isla tion. Ind eed , in Rodriguez, Mc Com b J exp ressed the view in a d issenting op inion tha t a ny c ha ng e in the la w d enying the wife rec overy fo r the lo ss of c o nso rtium sho uld b e left to leg isla tive a c tion. [19] It is a lso a p p a rent tha t the la w o f d elic t in Lesotho is fo und ed o n p rinc ip les tota lly a t va ria nc e with the la w o f to rtious lia b ility in the USA (a nd Eng la nd ). The Aq uilia n a c tion fo r neg lig enc e lies for p a trimonia l loss. The exc ep tions a re c la im s fo r p a in a nd suffering , d isfig urem ent a nd lo ss o f a m enities o f life a sso c ia ted with a c tua l b o d ily injury, b eing c la ims rec og nised und er the influenc e o f Germ a nic Custom a ry La w : see Hoffa NO. v SA Mutua l Fire & Genera l Insura nce Co Ltd 1965 (2) SA 944 (C) a t 951. A mo re rec ent exc ep tion is the c la im fo r nervous shoc k whic h, a s p ointed o ut a b ove, is reg a rd ed a s a sp ec ies o f b o d ily injury. But the d ec ision in Union Government v Wa rneke, sup ra , ha s never b een d ep a rted from a nd rema ins o ur la w . I a m unp ersua d ed tha t there is justific a tion for the fa r-rea c hing innova tive step w hic h the rec o g nition of a non- p ec unia ry c la im fo r lo ss o f c o nso rtium w o uld involve. To d o so , c o uld w ell op en the d oo r to a flo o d of simila r no n-p ec unia ry c la im s suc h a s fo r exa m p le c la im s fo r g rief o r b erea vem ent whic h ha ve never b een rec og nised a s a c tiona b le. See eg Ba rna rd v Sa ntam, sup ra , a t 206 H-I a nd 217 A – C. [20] It follow s tha t in m y view the a p p ea l a g a inst the a w a rd o f d a m a g es fo r “ lo ss of c omfo rt” m ust likewise b e up held . [21] In the result the following o rd er is m a d e: (1) (a ) The a p p ea l in the a c tion b ro ug ht b y Mr Jo sia se Khoete (c a se Numb er CIV/ T/ 25/ 2009) is up held in p a rt; (b ) The c o sts o f a p p ea l a re to b e p a id b y the sa id Mr Jo sia se Kho ete; (c ) The jud g m ent of the c o urt a q uo in tha t a c tion is set a sid e a nd the follo wing sub stituted in its stea d : “ Jud g ment is g ra nted in c a se numb er CIV/ T/ 25/ 2009 in fa vo ur o f the p la intiff fo r: (i) (ii) (iii) d a ma g es in the sum o f M15 000 fo r p a in a nd suffering interest thereo n a t the ra te o f 18.5 p erc ent p er a nnum fro m the d a te o f jud g ment; c o sts o f suit.” (2) (a ) The a p p ea l in the a c tion b ro ug ht b y Mrs 'Ma tsa b o Kho ete (c a se num b er CIV/ T/ 69/ 2000) is up held with c o sts. (b ) The jud g ment o f the C o urt a q uo in tha t a c tion is set a sid e a nd the follo wing sub stituted in its stea d . “ The a c tion is d ismissed with c o sts” . _________________ D. G SCOTT JUSTICE OF APPEAL I a g ree: ___________________ M. M. RAMODIBEDI PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL I a g ree: ___________________ I. G FARLAM JUSTICE OF APPEAL For the Appella nts : Ad v. R. Motsieloa For the Respondents : Ad v. K. J. Metsing