Farai Kazingizi v Jasper Manhanga

On 13 June 2010, the defendant assaulted the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to lose a tooth. The defendant was arrested and later convicted in the criminal court for assault, receiving a fine of $400 or 12 months imprisonment (with 4 months suspended for 5 years). The plaintiff then issued summons on 23 August 2010 claiming: (a) US$1,500 for tooth replacement; (b) US$1,500 for pain, suffering and discomfort; (c) US$500 for loss of business; plus interest and costs. The defendant initially denied liability, claiming they fought each other and that he did not cause the plaintiff's injuries. Medical evidence from Dr. T.E. Katsukunya confirmed that the plaintiff permanently lost one upper front tooth, though the injury was described as 'not serious' in medical terms. At trial, the defendant's counsel conceded liability, leaving only the quantum of damages to be determined. The plaintiff abandoned the claim for loss of business.

• Whether the defendant was liable for assaulting the plaintiff (conceded at trial)
• The appropriate quantum of damages for tooth replacement
• The appropriate quantum of damages for pain, suffering and discomfort arising from assault and tooth loss

1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff US$1,280 for tooth replacement. 2. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff US$1,000 for pain, suffering and discomfort. 3. The defendant shall pay interest on the amounts referred to in 1 and 2 above at the prescribed rate from the date of judgment to the date of payment in full. 4. The defendant shall pay costs of suit on the ordinary scale.

In assessing damages for assault causing personal injury: (1) Where multiple quotations for medical treatment exist without evidence of quality differences, the court should award the reasonable lower cost rather than automatically accepting the highest quotation; (2) Damages for pain, suffering and discomfort must be assessed having regard to established principles that damages are compensatory not punitive, that pain cannot be precisely measured, and that awards must be consistent with comparable cases and current economic conditions; (3) The medical severity of the injury (whether 'serious' or 'not serious' in medical terms) is a relevant factor in assessing quantum for pain and suffering, even where there is permanent loss (such as a tooth); (4) An award in the range of US$1,000 is appropriate for pain, suffering and discomfort arising from an assault causing permanent loss of one tooth where the injury is medically classified as 'not serious'.

Justice Mtshiya observed that courts would benefit significantly if medical specialists could also indicate the duration and degree of pain and suffering associated with particular forms of injury, as this would assist in the difficult task of translating non-pecuniary losses into monetary compensation. The judge also commended the defendant's legal practitioner for his professional approach in conceding liability when faced with clear evidence, noting this was the correct course of action despite the belated nature of the concession.

This case provides guidance on the assessment of damages in assault cases in Zimbabwe, particularly for dental injuries. It reinforces the established principles for assessing general damages for pain and suffering, emphasizing that courts should consider: (1) the compensatory rather than punitive nature of damages; (2) the difficulty of quantifying pain and suffering in monetary terms; (3) consistency with comparable awards; (4) current economic conditions; and (5) the actual medical severity of injuries. The judgment also demonstrates the importance of reasonableness in selecting treatment costs, holding that a plaintiff should opt for reasonable costs where multiple options exist without evidence of quality differences. The case contributes to the body of Zimbabwean jurisprudence on quantum of damages for personal injuries.