The basic rule of the common law is that damages in civil actions are awarded as compensation for injury and not as punishment for wrongdoing. The object is reparation; and the applicable principle is restitutio in integrum. Thus, the ultimate aim of the award is to restore the plaintiff, as far as money can do, to the position he would have been if the wrong had not been committed. In tort actions where the plaintiff's injury can be measured by some material loss, this principle will apply without much difficulty; however, in cases where the damages are “at large”—in that it involves a substantial subjective element, the viability of the principle of restitutio in integrum becomes doubtful. Moreover, the award of damages may sometimes look to the punishment of the defendant, instead of compensating the plaintiff; such damages are called “exemplary” damages.

This comment sets out to re-examine the problems associated with circumstantial evidence in instances of murder where there is no trace of a body or corpus delicti. This curiosity has been rekindled by the recent decision of Rooney, Ag. C. J., of the High Court of Swaziland in the case of King v. John Spokes Lawrence Madeleke. Besides the bizarre events which characterize its details, the case has brought to the fore once again the need to re-examine the principles underlying circumstantial evidence. Of particular interest is the basis of relying on such evidence as well as the weight to be attached to it particularly if it is the only basis on which a conviction on charge of murder is sustained. It is also contended that the decision in the Madeleke case, the first of its kind in Swaziland judicial history, has implications which go beyond its jurisdictional boundaries. Swaziland's juridical ties with Roman-Dutch law make the arguments interesting, especially for those concerned with comparative jurisprudence in the neighbouring states including South Africa.

It is first important to review briefly the relevant facts. In Madeleke the accused was charged with and subsequently convicted of the murder of his wife, Sheila, on the night following 17 January, 1991. The case for the prosecution was that Sheila was dead, murdered by her husband. To establish this proposition the Crown relied entirely upon circumstantial evidence. The most significant was that given by Thulie, the domestic servant of the accused.

In Botswana, as in several other African countries with a similar historical experience, a dual or plural land tenure system was carried over from the colonial era. The bulk of the land falls within the category of “tribal land”. It is predominantly held and occupied by indigenous peoples under customary notions of land tenure. The State also holds as “State land” a fairly significant proportion which fell under the category of “Crown lands” during the colonial era. A tiny proportion now falls within the category of “freehold land”. This is predominantly held and occupied in conformity with common law notions and conceptions imported into the country with colonial rule. To some extent both State land and freehold land are held under or governed by “received law”, in contradistinction to tribal land which is largely held under customary law.

In 1968, barely two years after independence, the Botswana parliament enacted legislation which attempted to reform customary land tenure by replacing existing customary or tribal institutions of land control and administration with statutory land boards. These started operating in 1970, and it soon became apparent from early assessments that even this limited and cautious programme of reform would not escape some of the problems associated with land transformation exercises elsewhere in Africa.

Before President F. W. de Klerk's epoch-making address on 2 February, 1990, anyone who predicted that within less than two years virtually all the major political parties and groupings in South Africa would be sitting around a conference table negotiating a new constitution, would have been dismissed as naive at best. Even more amazing is the substantial degree of consensus which has been achieved in what is a relatively short time, given the long history of conflict which preceded the dawning of the “new” South Africa.

The focus of the negotiations is the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (commonly referred to by the acronym Codesa). A wide spectrum of political opinion is represented here (a total of 19 different organizations at the last count), although organizations and parties on both the extreme right, and the extreme left, have refused to participate. While the government, the National Party and the African National Congress (ANC) may be seen as the main players, the role played by even the most minor participants cannot be discounted, because of the emphasis that is placed on consensus by most of the parties involved.