Kabelo Masoabi
A civil claim arising from a road traffic accident in Leribe has reached the High Court, with a Mosotho man seeking M94,300 in compensation for damages allegedly caused to his vehicle in a three-car collision.
The matter is before Justice ’Makampong Mokhoro.
The plaintiff, Seshophe Ramakoro of Leribe, has instituted legal proceedings against Letsapo Lisene of Berea, alleging that Mr Lisene’s negligent driving caused extensive damage to his Toyota Etios sedan.
According to evidence led before court, the accident occurred on 25 August 2023 at Likhetlane in Leribe and involved a Toyota Hilux, a minibus taxi and Mr Ramakoro’s Toyota Etios.
Police Constable Rapulane, who is attached to the Maputsoe policing area and investigated the accident, testified that the Toyota Hilux had been travelling from Mapoteng towards Maputsoe at what he described as excessive speed.
He told the court that the collision occurred at a blind spot near Koaring, where visibility for motorists is limited.
According to the officer’s testimony, the Hilux first struck the right rear side of a minibus taxi that had stopped to load passengers.
Following the initial impact, the Hilux allegedly crossed into the lane of oncoming traffic and collided head-on with Mr Ramakoro’s Toyota Etios, which was travelling from Maputsoe towards Mapoteng.
The court heard that after the second collision, the Hilux continued moving, veered off the road, crossed a roadside furrow and only came to a stop in a nearby field.
PC Rapulane further testified that his investigation established that the minibus taxi had been partially parked on the roadway while loading passengers, adding that a roadside furrow prevented the vehicle from moving completely off the road.
He told the court that overtaking is prohibited in the area and that the prescribed speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour.
The officer argued that had the Hilux been travelling within the legal speed limit, the driver would have had sufficient time and distance to stop safely behind the taxi.
“In my assessment, if the driver had been travelling at the regulated speed, he would have been able to stop without striking the taxi. Furthermore, the vehicle would not have proceeded to collide head-on with the oncoming sedan after braking,” PC Rapulane testified.
He added that the area includes a bus stop where pedestrians and livestock frequently cross the road.
The officer also described the collision between the Hilux and the Toyota Etios as severe, saying the impact caused the sedan to spin and face the opposite direction.
The court heard that the Etios sustained extensive damage, while Mr Ramakoro allegedly suffered injuries and was transported to hospital for treatment.
“To demonstrate the speed at which the Hilux was travelling, the skid marks extended for more than 50 paces before impact with the taxi. The vehicle also did not stop after the head-on collision but continued across a furrow and came to rest in a nearby field,” the officer said.
Based on his findings, PC Rapulane concluded that Mr Lisene had driven recklessly and that his conduct was the primary cause of the accident.
“His actions were unlawful because vehicles do not simply crash into stationary vehicles on the road,” he testified.
However, Mr Lisene denied liability.
In his defence, he argued that the minibus taxi driver was responsible for the accident because the vehicle had allegedly stopped at a blind spot and obstructed traffic.
Mr Lisene maintained that the taxi’s position left him with insufficient time and space to avoid the collision.
He rejected the police findings that he had been speeding and disputed claims that the taxi had been partially off the road.
“The taxi was fully occupying my lane when I encountered it. Had it not been unlawfully stopped on the road at a blind spot, this accident would not have occurred. I therefore deny liability and pray that the application be dismissed with costs,” he told the court.
Represented by Advocate Nthai of Molati Chambers, Mr Lisene also challenged the amount claimed by Mr Ramakoro.
He argued that the Toyota Etios sustained limited damage, particularly to the front bumper, and disputed the M94,300 repair claim, contending that the amount exceeds the vehicle’s value.
The matter was postponed to 9 November 2026 for the parties to submit closing arguments.