Court orders girlfriend to pay lover’s wife US$8 0...

Court orders girlfriend to pay lover’s wife US$8 000 in damages

Zim Now Writer

A Harare woman has been ordered to pay her lover’s wife US$8 000 in damages for breaking up the union by the civil court.

The order was made against Sheba Uta, for having an affair with James Chinhoi, Rosemary Chinhoi’s husband of 30 years.

Rosemary had sued for US$30 000 in adultery-related damages broken down as follows: US$10 000 for contumelia, US$10 000 for loss of consortium and US$5 000 compensation for the high blood pressure and stress caused by the affair.

The remainder was in compensation for the unhonoured promise that Uta, who is also her relative, would stop the affair.

Following a fully-contested civil trial, Harare magistrate Tamara Chibindi reduced the claim to US$8 000 for both contumelia and loss of consortium.

“Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim succeeds and the defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of US$8 000 or its equivalent in value in local currency at the official interbank rate calculated on the date of payment, together with interest to be calculated at the prescribed rate from the date of this judgment,” said Chibindi.

She argued that a civil claim for adultery damages was still relevant even in a progressive societies like Zimbabwe which has its social values sanctified in the Constitution.

The courts are on record saying the quantum of damages should not be a mockery to the aggrieved party lest the judicial system falls into disrepute and run the risk of being held in complicity with adulterous people.

Magistrate Chibindi noted that where evidence was flawless as in the case that Chinhoi was injured, insulted and subjected to indignity, contumelia umbrella damages were justified.

She also dismissed Uta’s defence as vexatious and frivolous, ruling that she was acting insincerely when she mounted her defence.

“Parts of her defence were clearly dishonest. More so, the defendant wasted the court’s time by defending this action when there was overwhelming evidence against her. Thus the costs on a higher scale are justified in these circumstances.”