Eugenia Teera v The Minister of Defence

On 4 June 2003 at around 2:00 am, the plaintiff was asleep at her home at 293/23rd Crescent, Glen View 1, Harare. Approximately twenty soldiers wearing camouflage uniforms, carrying AK47 assault rifles, and traveling in an army truck forcibly entered her house. They demanded to know the whereabouts of the local Member of Parliament, Paul Madzore. When she stated she did not know, they pulled her out of the house, forced her to lie on her stomach, held her down, and violently assaulted her using rifle butts, truncheons, batons, and booted feet for approximately ten minutes. She suffered multiple injuries particularly to her buttocks and back. The assault occurred during a period of political tension when the MDC was planning their "Final Push" demonstration. The defendant had deployed Zimbabwe National Army troops in greater Harare between 30 May 2003 and 9 June 2003 to assist police in maintaining law and order. The plaintiff collapsed after the assault and regained consciousness at Dandaro Clinic.

• Whether the plaintiff sued the correct defendant
• Whether the plaintiff was assaulted by members of the defendant's forces
• Whether the defendant could be held vicariously liable for acts committed by soldiers who may have been deserters or acting outside the scope of their employment
• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages and the quantum thereof

1. Defendant to pay plaintiff $4,000,000 being damages for unlawful assault; 2. Defendant to pay interest at the prescribed rate from date of judgment until payment in full; 3. Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of suit.

An employer is vicariously liable for the delicts of employees even where those employees may be deserters or acting partially for their own purposes, provided there is a sufficiently close link between the self-directed conduct and the employer's business. The test is objective: if the wrongful conduct shows a close connection with the business the employee was employed to conduct, vicarious liability attaches. In this case, soldiers deployed to counter political demonstrations who assault a perceived opposition sympathizer while inquiring about opposition activities are acting with sufficient nexus to their employer's business to render the employer vicariously liable, regardless of whether they exceeded their specific instructions or were technically deserters at the time.

The court noted that the political atmosphere was tense during the MDC's planned "Final Push" demonstration, and observed that the soldiers appeared to be punishing the plaintiff based on an assumption she was an MDC sympathizer, supporter or member. The court also commented that had the plaintiff's legal practitioners approached the medical evidence with due diligence, the court would have been better placed to assess damages, noting the scant documentary evidence available. The court expressed that it was carefully avoiding expressing opinion on matters outside its knowledge regarding whether the injuries described could warrant the alleged 21-day hospitalization.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it affirms the broad scope of vicarious liability in circumstances involving state security forces, particularly during politically sensitive periods. It establishes that employers (including state organs) cannot escape vicarious liability merely by claiming employees were deserters or acting outside the scope of employment if there is a sufficiently close link between the wrongful conduct and the employer's business. The case demonstrates the courts' willingness to hold the state accountable for human rights violations committed by security forces during political operations, even where those forces may have exceeded their specific instructions. It reinforces protection for victims of politically motivated violence and state-sanctioned assaults.