Civil court in Maseru awards M850 for shop fall despite limits of after-fall mat photo

The Civil court in Maseru ordered shop owner Thabo Mofolo to pay Lerato Rasebelisoa M850 for treatment and transport after finding that a raised entrance mat caused her fall. It granted the full amount requested, with no additional damages, interest or costs.

The dispute centred on what an after-fall photograph could establish. Lerato said her shoe caught on the curled mat as she entered the grocery shop; Thabo accepted her expenses but argued that neither the photograph nor his earlier inspection settled the mat's condition when she arrived.

The court assessed the evidence together rather than requiring the photograph to prove the fall by itself. The image showed a raised corner shortly afterward, while the accompanying message identified that corner as what caught Lerato's shoe. Together, they supported her specific and consistent account.

The judgment expressly recognised that Lerato's account was a saved client statement relayed by counsel, not admitted witness testimony or an independently verified document. It also acknowledged that the photograph showed neither the fall nor the mat beforehand. Those limitations reduced its weight without removing its supporting value.

Thabo's handwritten checklist recorded the entrance as clear and the mat flat at 8:00. But Lerato arrived around 10:30, and Thabo had no further information about checks during that interval. The court stressed that this gap did not itself prove her claim; the supporting account, photograph and caption did.

Nor was injury on the premises alone enough to establish responsibility. The court found that the mat caused the fall and saw insufficient evidence to attribute any contribution to Lerato. Her account said she was putting her phone away, not reading it, and no contrary evidence was presented.

The receipts established M850 in expenses. Although they did not independently prove the cause, Lerato's account linked the knee scrape to treatment, and Thabo did not dispute that the expenses related to injuries from this fall.

Lerato sought only reimbursement of the documented treatment and transport costs. Her counsel relied on her account of catching her shoe on the mat, the shortly-after photograph and the two-and-a-half-hour gap since Thabo's inspection, urging payment in full.

Thabo asked the court to deny or materially reduce payment. He maintained that the photograph recorded only the aftermath, while acknowledging that his checklist could not prove the mat remained flat until Lerato arrived. His objection concerned responsibility, not the amount or connection of the expenses to the fall.

Lerato reported scraping her knee while entering Thabo's grocery shop in Maseru. Shortly afterward, she sent her sister a WhatsApp photograph of the raised mat corner. She could not recall the exact date of the fall.

The judgment resolves the payment claim through the combined evidence, not a finding that the photograph captured the accident. It does not establish exactly when the corner became raised; it finds the evidence sufficient to connect the unsafe mat, the fall and the limited expenses claimed.