vào j88

Product description



　　You are here: 

　　SAFLII >>

　　>>

　　>>

　　>>

　　| Noteup

　　| LawCite

　　Download original files

　　PDF format

　　RTF format

　　 

　　SAFLII

　　Note: Certain

　　personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been

　　redacted from this document in compliance with the law

　　and SAFLII

　　Policy

　　 

　　IN

　　THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

　　EASTERN

　　CAPE LOCAL DIVISION -   MTHATHA

　　 CASE

　　NO 1551/13

　　In

　　the matter between:

　　NOTHEMBA

　　PRETTY SIBULALI                

　　                                           PLAINTIFF

　　And

　　MINISTER

　　OF

　　POLICE                                                                      

　　   DEFENDANT

　　JUDGEMENT

　　MGXAJI

　　AJ

　　[1]

　　The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant suing for

　　damages arising from an alleged unlawful and wrongful assault

　　on her

　　by members of the South African Police Services. The plaintiff

　　alleges that the assault took the form of torture, plastic

　　suffocation, sticks and coercion.  

　　[2]

　　In her amended particulars of claim in paragraph 3 and pertinently in

　　paragraph 5 thereof the plaintiff pleaded her assault

　　claim in the

　　following terms:

　　“3.

　　On the 10th

　　May 2013 at Mantusini location Mthambalala A/A Lusikisiki district,

　　the plaintiff was wrongfully and unlawfully assaulted by the

　　members

　　of the South African Police Services tortured, suffocated using

　　plastic, coerced or assaulted by sticks, by people who

　　addressed

　　themselves as members of the South African Police Services whilst

　　they were executing their duties within their scope

　　of employment.

　　4.

　　This tragedy arose while she was bereaved for the death of her sister

　　in their homestead.

　　5.

　　These members wore Police uniforms using vehicles [B......] and

　　[B......].

　　6.

　　The defendant’s conduct was blameworthy to society; and so as

　　such their actions resulted to liability.

　　7.

　　The conduct of the tortfeaser was directed against the plaintiff with

　　the intention to injure her.

　　8.

　　As a result of their wrongful conduct the plaintiff suffered these

　　damages, unlawful conduct which causes harm to the plaintiff.

　　8.1

　　Infringement of dignity of the plaintiff.

　　8.2

　　Invasion of privacy.

　　8.3

　　Physical injuries.

　　8.4

　　Fault on part of the defendant, contumelia.

　　8.5

　　Voluntary wrongful conduct directed to the plaintiff, pains and

　　suffering by the plaintiff.”

　　[2]

　　The defendant denied the assault allegations and in its plea relative

　　to the above quoted paragraphs of the plaintiff’s

　　particulars

　　of claim, pleaded as follows:

　　“4.

　　AD PARAGRAPH 3-8THEREOF

　　4.1The

　　defendant denies that it ever assaulted or dealt with the plaintiff

　　in the manner pleaded by her. Defendant admits though

　　meeting the

　　plaintiff on the date in question.

　　4.2

　　Defendant through an informer acquired information that plaintiff had

　　a firearm in her premises which was being used in the

　　commission of a

　　criminal offences.

　　4.3

　　The members of the defendant visited the plaintiff and after she

　　arrived at her homestead the members of the defendant requested

　　consent to search her home after all her rights were explained to

　　her. After her rights were explained to her, she agreed. Indeed

　　the

　　members of the defendant searched the premises as agreed upon.

　　4.4

　　The defendant at no stage did they drive a motor vehicle [B......];

　　plaintiff is put to proof of his allegations. The balance

　　is denied.”

　　[3]

　　At the commencement of the trial Mr Mkhongozeli, who appeared on

　　behalf of the Plaintiff, advised the court that the Plaintiff

　　was

　　pursuing only the claim of the alleged assault for determination and

　　abandoning all other issues in the plaintiff’s suit

　　and that

　　only the Plaintiff would testify on her behalf. Mr Kunju representing

　　the Defendant confirmed the alleged assault claim

　　being the only

　　issue this court will have to make a finding on at the end of the

　　trial and that the defendant would possible call

　　one witness. It is

　　so that the matter fell to be dealt with on merits and quantum.

　　EVIDENCE

　　[4]

　　The Plaintiff in her evidence in chief, led by Mr Mkhongozeli,

　　testified that she resided at Mantusini locality, Mthambalala

　　Administrative Area, Lusikisiki and on the 10th May 2013

　　was at her sister’s homestead attending a night vigil when at

　　3:00 am Police Officers amongst them a Police woman

　　arrived looking

　　for her. They slapped her with an open hand and the female Officer

　　started to assault her without identifying themselves.

　　She testified

　　that they asked for her husband who was not at home but at his great

　　home, inquiring further from her as to where

　　the firearm was and in

　　respect to which she told them she had no knowledge of.

　　[5]

　　She testified that the Police put a plastic on her nose spraying

　　something on her eyes, handcuffed her wrists while hitting

　　her with

　　sticks on her back in which she sustained strikes. She stated that

　　the fire arm was not found and she had to consult a

　　Doctor in

　　Hospital at Lusikisiki on the following day as a result of the

　　assault. At this stage a J88 completed Form was provisionally

　　handed

　　in after an objection by the defendant’s counsel to the

　　document on the basis that it was completed by a Doctor who

　　should be

　　summoned to hand it in. She confirmed the notes regarding her

　　injuries as recorded in the J88 Form provisionally made

　　EXHIBIT A

　　praying that this court should grant her a compensatory order.

　　[6]

　　The Plaintiff was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant by Mr

　　Kunju and testified that she never saw a firearm at her home

　　and that

　　the Police Officers were taken by her nephew from her home to her

　　sister’s homestead where she was attending a night

　　vigil

　　whereafter entering the house she was in with other mourners the

　　Police Officers came and just clapped her, manhandled her

　　hitting her

　　with sticks. She stated that they started the assault with open hands

　　while she was at her sister’s place continuously

　　and at her

　　home they handcuffed her and kicked her having been subjected to such

　　assault on the way to her home crying too. She

　　testified that she was

　　telling them that there was no firearm and had no knowledge of it.

　　[7]

　　She testified that she was sprayed in her eyes and could not see as

　　her eyes looked as though it was dark. When asked how she

　　saw those

　　who assaulted her to have been in Police uniform she stated that her

　　eyes had tears and they told her when assaulting

　　her that they were

　　Police Officers. When put to her that she was never tortured she

　　answered that she was handcuffed at her home.

　　The plaintiff, when it

　　was put to her that the Police on the day had no sticks, stated that

　　they used firewood from her homestead

　　picked from a fireplace. When

　　it was put to her that the Police would testify that she had

　　co-operated and they had no reason to

　　assault her, she replied that

　　they started at her sister’s place to assault her after she had

　　told them that she had never

　　seen a fire arm at her homestead.

　　[8]

　　When asked whether was there no other infringement she complained

　　about she stated that she was pepper sprayed on her eyes,

　　plastic was

　　put on her nose after being taken from her sister’s place and

　　was assaulted all over the body specifically on

　　her thighs, that she

　　had cuts on both hand writs, also   at her back sustaining

　　strikes on it and after the assault she

　　had difficulty urinating, her

　　head became painful and also her buttocks were painful from the

　　assault although she was never stripped.

　　When asked if she told and

　　showed her body to the doctor she answered that she merely informed

　　the doctor of her injuries. She

　　testified that when she reported on

　　the cell phone in the presence of the Police Officers to her husband

　　about the assault her

　　husband said to her the Police should go to

　　him. When it was put to her that her husband rebuked her on the phone

　　for co-operating

　　with the Police in the latter’s search for the

　　firearm she denied that her husband had said so but that the Police

　　should

　　go to him.

　　[9]

　　When re-examined by her attorney she testified that the Doctor who

　　examined her was no longer in Lusikisiki.

　　[10]

　　The Plaintiff closed her case without calling further evidence.

　　[11]

　　On behalf of the defendant Ayanda Jafta testified that she was a

　　44year old member of the South African Police Services since

　　1994 and

　　as on the 10th   May 2013 was attached to the

　　Public Order Policing Unit on patrol in a group of twenty Police

　　Officers at Mthambalala,

　　Lusikisiki having been so commanded as a

　　consequence of the spate of robberies and murder of Pakistan

　　Nationals in the area. She

　　stated that in one homestead after they

　　had subdivided into a unit of five officers they found an unkempt boy

　　who introduced himself

　　as the nephew in the homestead whose owners

　　had gone into the neighbourhood and who led them on their request to

　　the homestead

　　where the plaintiff was.

　　[12]

　　At this homestead this boy whilst standing at the door pointed at the

　　plaintiff whom the witness requested to speak to and

　　who without any

　　resistance acquiesced. She stated that they asked the plaintiff for

　　permission to search her homestead as they

　　had information of a

　　firearm kept at her premises, denying the plaintiff’s assault

　　allegations at the homestead where they

　　fetched her. She denied

　　handcuffing the plaintiff and when she agreed to the search for the

　　fire arm the plaintiff pointed them

　　to near the kraal but nothing was

　　found and then the plaintiff led them to a shrub, still in the

　　homestead, in which when they

　　could not retrieve it they asked her

　　husband’s whereabouts.

　　[13]

　　The witness stated that they caused the plaintiff using their cell

　　phone to speak to her husband regarding their presence in

　　search of a

　　firearm in their homestead. She testified that when they noticed that

　　her husband was not co-operative they left with

　　her their phone

　　number to which they instructed the plaintiff that her husband on his

　　return should call them as he refused to

　　disclose where he was. She

　　stated that there was whilst at the plaintiff’s homestead a

　　neighbourly man who joined them in

　　observance. She further stated

　　that there was at all time the boy who had accompanied them to the

　　home to which the plaintiff had

　　gone for a night vigil and from which

　　they fetched her, denying that they tortured and suffocated the

　　plaintiff.

　　[14]

　　The witness was cross-examined by Mr Mkhongozeli on behalf of the

　　plaintiff as to who had informed them about the firearm to

　　which the

　　witness in reply stated that it was their Commander and that she had

　　never met the plaintiff before or after that day.

　　She admitted being

　　the only lady in her patrol sub group of five Police Officers denying

　　any assault on the plaintiff. She conceded

　　that they gave the

　　plaintiff their cell phone to call her husband but who, the witness

　　testified, threateningly dissuaded her against

　　cooperating with them

　　in their search denying that when they could not find the firearm

　　they repeatedly assaulted the plaintiff

　　with sticks and suffocation.

　　She admitted that the Police motor vehicle BSJ EP was used by them on

　　the day. When put to her that

　　they assaulted the plaintiff the

　　witness denied.

　　[15]

　　At this stage Mr Kunju advised that he was closing the defendant’s

　　case.

　　[16]

　　In argument Mr Mkhongozeli submitted that the plaintiff’s

　　evidence was unshaken and that the J88 medical report which

　　has been

　　provisionally handed in should be finally admitted in terms of

　　of the . He argued

　　that the defendant’s witness, as in the defendant’s plea,

　　was just denying the assault because she was the

　　only woman in the

　　Police group. He urged me to find in plaintiff’s favour and

　　grant a compensatory order for general damages.

　　[17]

　　On behalf of the defendant Mr Kunju argued that I have to determine

　　whether the plaintiff was ever assaulted by the defendant’s

　　members contending that the plaintiff’s evidence is full of

　　contradictions, unreliable and exaggerated. He argued that the

　　plaintiff had an onus to prove her allegations but failed to call

　　witnesses like the boy the plaintiff was staying with and who

　　was

　　present to corroborate her testimony. He further submitted that the

　　J88 Form which merely reflected bruises should not be admitted

　　as it

　　has not been agreed to by the defendant and that the Doctor who

　　completed it has not been called too. To help in analysing

　　the

　　evidence in this matter he referred me to the tools of analysis

　　enunciated in STELLENBOSCH

　　FARMERS’ WINERY GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v MARTELL ET CIE AND

　　OTHERS[1].

　　[18]

　　Mr Kunju argued that the defendant’s witness did not contradict

　　herself and in denying the assault, given the paucity

　　of the

　　plaintiff’s testimony, nothing more could be expected of the

　　defendant.

　　PLAINTIFF’

　　S ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS AND PROOF

　　[19]

　　In my assessment of the evidence the issue to be determined is

　　whether the plaintiff has discharged the onus cast upon her

　　of

　　proving the alleged assault by the defendant’s members on the

　　10th

　　May 2013.The onus the plaintiff bears is the overall duty of proving

　　the factual circumstances of the alleged assault which factual

　　issue

　　the defendant in its plea has denied. If the plaintiff has failed to

　　satisfy this court that she is entitled to a finding

　　in her favour

　　ineluctably her claim must fail. Put differently it follows that if

　　the plaintiff has failed to furnish some measure

　　of proof of the

　　assault on her by the police, then no prima facie case has been

　　established and there will be no duty cast upon

　　the defendant to

　　adduce evidence to combat or in rebuttal.(See: SOUTH

　　CAPE CORP v ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT SERVICES[2]).

　　[20]

　　Only the plaintiff testified on her behalf regarding only the assault

　　she alleges in her particulars of claim was inflicted

　　by police

　　officers amongst whom was a female who clapped her face with an open

　　hand whilst at her sister’s place where there

　　was a night

　　vigil, also was assaulted on her way home handcuffed, and at her home

　　they assaulted her all over her body. The plaintiff

　　stated that she

　　did not identify the Police neither did they identify themselves

　　because it was in the dark.

　　[21]

　　In paragraph 5 of her particulars of claim the plaintiff mentioned

　　the motor vehicle registration numbers [B......]1B and BSJ834B

　　as

　　number plates of the motor vehicles used by the three Police Officers

　　who assaulted her, testifying at court that the former

　　registration

　　numbers she had noted it from a Police Vehicle at the hospital when

　　she attended at about 10h00 to the Doctor on following

　　day. The

　　defence witness testified that her Police Unit did not use a motor

　　vehicle with registration numbers [B......]1B but [B......]

　　in their

　　patrol that night.  

　　[22]

　　Under cross examination as to when was she assaulted she testified

　　that she was assaulted with an open hand, sprayed in the

　　eyes and

　　handcuffed with a plastic put on her nose whilst at her sister’s

　　place and on the way to her home.  When asked

　　if the Police were

　　in uniform she answered yes yet in her evidence in chief she

　　testified that it was dark and unsure in what attire

　　were these

　　Police. Over and above the assault methods aforesaid in her evidence

　　the plaintiff further testified about an indiscriminate

　　assault all

　　over her body with sticks which under cross examination she said were

　　firewood collected by the Police at her home.

　　[23]

　　Further under cross examination she stated that the Police started to

　　assault her heavily from the feet to the head after asking

　　her

　　husband’s whereabouts and a fire arm about which she testified

　　to have answered that she had no knowledge and that her

　　husband had

　　gone to their great home. She testified that the Police caused her to

　　speak to her husband who she told about the assault

　　she was subjected

　　to but her husband rebuked her for co-operating with the Police. She

　　admitted that in the Doctors J88 report

　　which was provisionally

　　admitted there was no recording of the assaults she testified to have

　　sustained but only a three centimetre

　　linear bruise on her left hand

　　and 5 x 6 bruises at the back. It was her testimony that she was

　　stripped naked on her upper body

　　and assaulted as also in her

　　buttocks and head all about which she had told her Doctor.

　　[24]

　　During the assault on her, as she testified, from her sister’s

　　home and until her home there was the young boy staying

　　with them who

　　accompanied the Police to the plaintiff at the night vigil and back

　　to her home. Further she testified that when

　　she was suffocated with

　　a plastic bag there was a man observing all the assault on her.

　　Notwithstanding the defendant’s denial

　　of the assault on her

　　the plaintiff has not called as a witness the young man who, she

　　testified, to have been her nephew and who

　　she testified witnessed

　　the assault nor has the plaintiff called the man, who she testified,

　　to have been from her neighbourhood,

　　who was present at her home

　　during the perpetration of the assault by the Police neither her

　　husband who, she testified, to have

　　informed when she was caused to

　　speak to him on the cell phone by the Police.

　　[25]

　　Of course consistent with its plea the defendant’s witness

　　denied in her evidence any assault on the plaintiff and that

　　the

　　plaintiff never spoke of assault to her husband when they caused her

　　to speak to him regarding the firearm.

　　[26]

　　In her testimony on behalf of the defendant the Police witness denied

　　having assaulted the plaintiff, admitted having spoken

　　to the

　　plaintiff whom they fetched assisted by a young boy from her sister’s

　　place in the night vigil and that they searched

　　her homestead for a

　　firearm. It must be said that what was put to the defence witness

　　under cross examination that the plaintiff

　　was assaulted by Police as

　　a group but not the witness in singular deviated from the plaintiff’s

　　evidence in chief that she

　　was assaulted with an open hand by the

　　only female Police Officer in the group even though the plaintiff has

　　not in her testimony

　　provided specifics as to who exactly assaulted

　　her at what stage and who sprayed her when and when was she put

　　plastic on her nose.

　　Her failure to testify regarding specifics such

　　as at what stage she was caused to undress her upper body, if by

　　herself, and by

　　whom amongst the Police Officers was she ordered to

　　strip bare her upper body and how thick the firewood or the sticks

　　she testified

　　were used in the assault on her body, in my assessment,

　　left her narration inadequate and hazy.

　　[27]

　　The plaintiff’s evidence of assault with fire wood or sticks,

　　which the Police witness denied, would ordinarily have

　　produced weal

　　all over her body and her testimony about a number of strikes having

　　been inflicted on her head, in my view, she

　　would not have escaped

　　sustaining haematoma yet the Doctor’s J88 Form reflects none of

　　those, not even a bruise, which to

　　me renders her version to be an

　　implausible claim. The plaintiff’s legal representative

　　attributed these shortcomings in

　　the plaintiff’s evidence to

　　her elementary schooling, a characterisation I disagree with because

　　she was led in her evidence

　　presentation and her glib answers

　　reflected not so much her inability to convey her recollection of her

　　alleged ordeal but rather

　　a lack of an account of what actually had

　　taken place.

　　[28]

　　The plaintiff appeared to me to be a self confident vivacious young

　　woman who cannot be said has had personal constraints consequent

　　from

　　her lack of a formal education. In my view she seemed to lack the

　　necessary information of a personally experienced event

　　narrator. It

　　is on account of this glaring absence of a coordinated way of

　　recounting the assault she alleged was perpetrated by

　　the Police that

　　her version I find to be unbelievable. It comes as not surprising, it

　　seems to me, that the plaintiff has not been

　　advised to seek

　　corroboration by the young boy, she testified, once stayed with her

　　as her nephew who accompanied the police officers

　　to where she had

　　been in the night vigil or the neighbourhood man who, according to

　　her evidence, was at her home during the alleged

　　assault nor anyone

　　at her sister’s home attending the night vigil, where according

　　to her testimony, she was clapped with

　　an open hand right in the

　　doorway of the house by the female police officer.

　　[29]

　　It is my fortified view that the plaintiff’s version is

　　factually incredible and her recollection of the assault, if

　　the

　　alleged assault ever occurred at all, unreliable and in my assessment

　　and evaluation of it against the evidence of the defence

　　witness it

　　is highly improbable too.(SEE: SFW

　　GROUP LTD &ANOTHER v MARLTELL ET CIE & OTHERS[3]).

　　In her evidence in chief the plaintiff stated that she was given the

　　J88 Form at the Police Station which she took to the hospital

　　where

　　it was filled by a Doctor. She has no hospital medical card which she

　　would ordinarily be issued with had she, as a consequence

　　of the

　　alleged assault, initially attended the hospital for medical

　　examination.

　　[30]

　　Inferably it seems to me, even though it was not specifically put to

　　the plaintiff, the J88 Form was given to her because she

　　had gone to

　　the Police Station to lay a complaint of assault on her that having

　　been her first step on the day after the alleged

　　assault on her,

　　hence the plaintiff’s inability to obtain evidence by a

　　hospital Doctor or Superintendant who would have

　　worked in giving

　　evidence in this matter from the hospital notes relating to

　　plaintiff’s hospital examination. This is so

　　notwithstanding

　　the fact the Doctor who completed her J88 Form has not been said to

　　have been beyond reach but merely transferred

　　from Lusikisiki.

　　[31]

　　What renders further the plaintiff’s version incredible is the

　　fact that under cross examination she stated that the

　　Doctor when he

　　completed the J88 Form did not examine her body but merely noted what

　　she relayed to him. Her evidence under cross

　　examination that she was

　　assaulted on the head and buttocks is not supported by the notes on

　　the J88 Form presupposing that she

　　had not mentioned to the Doctor

　　that she had been assaulted on these body parts. Further if her

　　testimony that she told the Doctor

　　without her body having been

　　examined on which part the assault had been inflicted is to be

　　believed how could she have identified

　　and counted the 5 x 6 bruises

　　at her back as noted in the J88 Form. Still further on what basis the

　　Doctor could have recorded

　　the bruises without having examined the

　　plaintiff and recorded what him/herself had observed. This is a

　　jigsaw puzzle only the

　　plaintiff could have in her testimony resolved

　　but failed though invited to deal with.

　　[32]

　　In view of these glaring incongruities on behalf of the plaintiff in

　　order to help bolster her version it was imperative that

　　medical

　　evidence should have   been produced. When under cross

　　examination it was put to her that not only her husband

　　reproached

　　her during their cell phone conversation in the Police presence at

　　her home using their cell phone but also that she

　　was assaulted by

　　her husband after his return home, the plaintiff glibly answered that

　　she was at the funeral on his arrival. It

　　remained unclear whether

　　she was denying the assault by her husband or not.           

　　[33]

　　As a last aspect in this matter on behalf of the plaintiff tendered

　　was a J88 medical report which was objected to on behalf

　　of the

　　defendant. In her evidence the plaintiff stated that the Doctor who

　　examined her left the Hospital. Mr Mkhongozeli on her

　　behalf applied

　　for the admission of the J88 medical report placing reliance on

　　of the that

　　this court must admit the J88 medical report in the interests of

　　justice. He however has not been able to advance which interests

　　of

　　justice on the facts and circumstances of this matter would be that

　　this court should be persuaded to admit the copy of the

　　medical

　　report.

　　[33]

　　It is so that the Doctor who filled the J88 Form according to the

　　plaintiff moved from Lusikisiki and there has not been any

　　attempt to

　　determine which hospital has he/she joined neither am I advised of

　　any attempts to locate him/her nor has there been

　　any endeavour to

　　secure such evidence from the hospital the plaintiff was examined in

　　by issuing a subpoena duces tecum utilising

　　(1) so that the

　　J88 Form becomes admitted to corroborate her assault allegations.

　　[34]In

　　such circumstances I do not consider it necessary to even begin to

　　investigate, where there are hospital doctors and notes

　　available

　　relating to the plaintiff’s examination, and consider the

　　circumstances that must inform the basis for the admission

　　of hearsay

　　evidence as are enumerated in (c) of the

　　.

　　[35]

　　The plaintiff’s legal representative if he had any spirited

　　effort to have the J88 medical report admitted in these proceedings

　　would have ensured that a doctor from the hospital in Lusikisiki has

　　been secured with ease to help the plaintiff in these proceedings

　　if

　　the plaintiff had attended the hospital for her alleged assault

　　injuries. In my view the J88 medical report remains inadmissible

　　as

　　it is hearsay unless the doctor upon whose credibility the probative

　　value of what it records depends has been called and testified. 

　　              

　　[36]

　　Accordingly I find that the plaintiff failed to establish the alleged

　　assault on her by the police on the 10th May 2013 and her

　　claim must fail.

　　[37]

　　In the result the following order is made:

　　1.

　　The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.

　　____________

　　MGXAJI

　　AJ

　　ACTING

　　JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

　　 

　　DATE

　　HEARD:                                                  

　　26 MAY 2016

　　JUDGMENT

　　DELIVERED:                              

　　21 JUNE 2016

　　 

　　FOR

　　THE PLAINTIFF:                                       

　　MR MKHONGOZELI

　　PLAINTIFF’S

　　ATTORNEYS:                            

　　H. N. MKHONGOZELI ATT.

　　                                                                                        

　　NO.

　　5 PARK ROAD

　　                                                                                        

　　MTHATHA

　　 

　　FOR

　　THE DEFENDANT:                                    

　　MR KUNJU

　　                                                                                        

　　THE

　　OFFICE OF STATE ATTORNEY

　　                                                                                        

　　NO.

　　94 SISSION STREET

　　                                                                                        

　　BROADCAST

　　HOUSE

　　                                                                                        

　　FORTGALE

　　                                                                                        

　　MTHATHA

　　[1]

　　2003 (1) SA 11

　　[2]

　　1977 (3) 534 at 548A-D

　　[3]

　　SCA par 5