was not allowed by the 1st defendant to participate in the distribution of his estate. [58] Furthermore, it came out in cross-examination that the 1st defendant was not amused at the manner in which the vehicles were being driven and particularly that the hearse was not in front as the custom seems to be. This the plaintiff explained but it does not appear that the defendants asked nor was it explained to them why the plaintiff’s vehicle arrived at the homestead first. In my view, this goes to show that there was a motive at that very point why the defendants could hurl the insults that they did. The probabilities in this regard, accord with the plaintiff’s case in my considered view. [59] I also note that even from the defendants’ evidence, particularly that of the 2nd defendant, as recorded above, the plaintiff was also crying when she went into the house after the deceased’s body had been removed from the vehicle. In the circumstances, her behaviour of grief and sadness was totally at odds with a person who had achieved the mission of killing the deceased as alleged. Why would she cry? It was not suggested nor even put to her that she was happy with the death of the deceased and that if she did shed any tears, they were nothing but crocodile tears. This, in my view lends credence to the plaintiff’s case and correspondingly weakens, if not totally destroys the substratum of the defendants’ accusations. [60] It also bears mentioning that the story of the 1st defendant heaping praises on the plaintiff for erecting the tombstone of the late Gershon Katjiri rings hollow and points to the eulogy alleged by some of the 1st defendant’s witnesses as having been fabricated by the defendants. I say so for the reason that it is clear that the 1st defendant was unhappy with the plaintiff as exemplified by him being agitated by the sequence in which the vehicles arrived and with how the plaintiff’s vehicle in particular, was being driven. How he could, in those circumstances, thank the plaintiff for erecting a tombstone two years earlier, and to thank her for her latest acts of magnanimity, ‘forget’ in catering for Adolf’s funeral, is simply mind-blowing and unbelievable, inexorably pointing to the defendants’ evidence in this regard being contrived and false. I find and hold this for a fact.
was not allowed by the 1st defendant to participate in the distribution of his estate. [58] Furthermore, it came out in cross-examination that the 1st defendant was not amused at the manner in which the vehicles were being driven and particularly that the hearse was not in front as the custom seems to be. This the plaintiff explained but it does not appear that the defendants asked nor was it explained to them why the plaintiff’s vehicle arrived at the homestead first. In my view, this goes to show that there was a motive at that very point why the defendants could hurl the insults that they did. The probabilities in this regard, accord with the plaintiff’s case in my considered view. [59] I also note that even from the defendants’ evidence, particularly that of the 2nd defendant, as recorded above, the plaintiff was also crying when she went into the house after the deceased’s body had been removed from the vehicle. In the circumstances, her behaviour of grief and sadness was totally at odds with a person who had achieved the mission of killing the deceased as alleged. Why would she cry? It was not suggested nor even put to her that she was happy with the death of the deceased and that if she did shed any tears, they were nothing but crocodile tears. This, in my view lends credence to the plaintiff’s case and correspondingly weakens, if not totally destroys the substratum of the defendants’ accusations. [60] It also bears mentioning that the story of the 1st defendant heaping praises on the plaintiff for erecting the tombstone of the late Gershon Katjiri rings hollow and points to the eulogy alleged by some of the 1st defendant’s witnesses as having been fabricated by the defendants. I say so for the reason that it is clear that the 1st defendant was unhappy with the plaintiff as exemplified by him being agitated by the sequence in which the vehicles arrived and with how the plaintiff’s vehicle in particular, was being driven. How he could, in those circumstances, thank the plaintiff for erecting a tombstone two years earlier, and ‘forget’ to thank her for her latest acts of magnanimity, in catering for Adolf’s funeral, is simply mind-blowing and unbelievable, inexorably pointing to the defendants’ evidence in this regard being contrived and false. I find and hold this for a fact.