Legal representatives locked shoulders Thursday morning defending and shoring interests in a civil case where De Beers Botswana head honcho, Daniel Neo Moroka is being sued for an amount of P2 million for killing of Tshabong youngster, Kealeboga Danster in the fall of 2014.
For some time attorneys in the case, Kgosietsile Ngakaagae, representing Moroka and Letlhogonolo Makgene representing the litigant and the deceased’s mother Margaret Danster, became locked in an argument where Ngakaagae, representing Moroka is yet to file a plea, a development that inadvertently holds back the filing of a default judgement by the accuser’s legal representative.
Ngakaagae had cited confusion in the rules saying they did not know whether the court had to tell them to file a plea or whether they had to file it on their own, playing it down as the selection of either of the two options. However, Makgene openly wondered how Moroka, represented by an experienced barrister could have failed to file a plea. He also pondered to the Judge why Ngakaagae as an experienced barrister could cite confusion in the court rules that were last reviewed in 2008.
Makgene said, “Without trying to cast aspersions on Ngakaagae I do not think that there was confusion on when to file, there must be another reason, more so that the litigant is represented by an experienced lawyer.”
Ngakaagae shot down Makgene and Danster’s argument made in the declaration that she is entitled to compensation for her son’s death, on the premise that she being the mother deserved compensation because the life of the deceased was cut short.
Ngakaagae contended that there has never been a cause of action affirming compensation for the loss of a loved one and that no individual can be compensated for the life of another individual, safe for where the life expectancy of an individual has been reduced and right to long quality life had been taken due to negligence by another person.
He further argued that should Danster be given the judgement she requests, the law will be thrown into pandemonium and confusion as there will be no limit as to who could claim compensation for the death of a family member as any other next of kin or even friend can lay own claims.
Ngakaagae also argued that the judgement might also precipitate a state of affairs where people might accelerate deaths of other people eyeballing laying their own claims.
He pointed out to Danster’s statement that says the deceased was only 18 years old when he passed on and she was hoping that in future he will earn money and take care of her, saying that she ought to show and prove that the deceased was supporting her when he passed on and not the anticipated or speculated future support. Ngakaagae contended that the elder Danster’s own life is still intact; therefore she has no legal standing to seek recompense and is not even in the clear as to whether she is administrator of the estate of the deceased.
He said that on the claim of loss of dependency and support, such claim is premised on uncertainty and is futuristic. He argued that nobody knows what could have become of the future life of the deceased. “Possibly he could have become something in life-we don’t know, they don’t know but they are asking for damages.” Ngakaagae sniped before adding that the litigant’s claim does not hold water and it should collapse.
The litigant’s lawyer Makgene however retorted by saying and conceding that while a case of this kind has never been brought before the courts of law in the country it will be simplistic to say that the parent of a child who has been killed has no remedy to seek recompense for the loss.
He argued that there are a number of jurisdictions in the commonwealth where shortened life is claimable and it should not only be with past as there has been an action for loss of prospective support that you raise a child so that they pay back by supporting the parent, an argument which presiding Justice Godfrey Nthomiwa questioned the application’s use of the word ‘pay back.’
However, Makgene still held his own against a ferocious counter- argument from Ngakaagae reiterating his stance that an individual can still claim loss of future support not only for the past but for the future as well, before letting known that Danster had not asked expressly for the P2million figure, but a judgement and the court or the registrar will determine the quantum of damage.
He also contended that if judgement is served in favour of the defendant it will then be easier and cheaper to maim than to kill as there is no civil claim when you kill, particularly since the relative child has been killed which is itself a prima facie.
He also argued that since in the broader context the body (Directorate of Public Prosecutions) responsible for prosecutions has abdicated its duty of criminally prosecuting Moroka, a judgement on the contrary will effectively mean Moroka is allowed to get away scot free having already escaped from accountability under criminal law.
Ngakaagae countered Makgene in the extended legal affray saying that in common law no parent has the right of support from a child except in circumstances where the parent brings action of support because such parent is destitute, then that right arises. He continued slicing and dicing Makgene’s argument saying any parent who says, “I hope for the future” is effectively saying, “I am actually eyeballing a life of poverty” also adding that parents are not reserved the right of support from their children as that support is only given as societal obligation and not a right.
Ngakaagae added that Neo Moroka does not undermine the death of the deceased and Danster’s argument is prone to collapse since its success is at present premised on the mercy of the court. “We do not in any way undermine the death of this poor soul but this application is simply ill advised and pleading sentiment before the court,” he said.
Moroka, who is a former Minister of Trade and Industry is being sued for killing Kealeboga Danster in a hunt for a rogue stray dog that terrorised farm hands at his farm about 22 kilometres from Makopong in Kgalagadi South.
Moroka, it is believed holds the defence that the projectile that killed the younger Danster came from the barrel of his (Moroka) gun that had been aimed in the direction of a camping tent where it was believed the stray dog was in, but had ricocheted in a different direction toward the youthful Danster.
Botswana Police Service (BPS) has indicated concern about the ongoing trend where the general public falls victim to criminals purporting to be police officers.
According to BPS Assistant Commissioner, Dipheko Motube, the criminals target individuals at shopping malls and Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) where upon approaching the unsuspecting individual the criminals would pretend to have picked a substantial amount of money and they would make a proposal to the victims that the money is counted and shared in an isolated place.
“On the way, as they stop at the isolated place, they would start to count and sharing of the money, a criminal syndicate claiming to be Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officer investigating a case of stolen money will approach them,” said Motube in a statement.
The Commissioner indicated that the fake police officers would instruct the victims to hand over all the cash they have in their possession, including bank cards and Personal Identification Number (PIN), the perpetrators would then proceed to withdraw money from the victim’s bank account.
Motube also revealed that they are also investigating a case in which a 69 year old Motswana woman from Molepolole- who is a victim of the scam- lost over P62 000 last week Friday to the said perpetrators.
“The Criminal syndicate introduced themselves as CID officers investigating a case of robbery where a man accompanying the woman was the suspect.’’
They subsequently went to the woman’s place and took cash amounting to over P12 000 and further swindled amount of P50 000 from the woman’s bank account under the pretext of the further investigations.
In addition, Motube said they are currently investigating the matter and therefore warned the public to be vigilant of such characters and further reminds the public that no police officer would ask for bank cards and PINs during the investigations.
Botswana Congress Party (BCP) leadership walked out of Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting this week on account of being targeted by other cooperating partners.
UDC meet for the first time since 2020 after previous futile attempts, but the meeting turned into a circus after other members of the executive pushed for BCP to explain its role in media statements that disparate either UDC and/or contracting parties.
The Director General of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crimes (DCEC), Tymon Katlholo’s spirited fight against the contentious transfers of his management team has forced the Office of the President to rescind the controversial decision. However, some insiders suggest that the reversal of the transfers may have left some interested parties with bruised egos and nursing red wounds.
The transfers were seen by observers as a badly calculated move to emasculate the DCEC which is seen as defiant against certain objectionable objectives by certain law enforcement agencies – who are proven decisionists with very little regard for the law and principle.