Florence Kusemamuriwo v Luck Goora

On or about 1 July 2020, at Matanda Shopping Centre in Shamva, the Defendant unlawfully assaulted the Plaintiff by hitting her with bricks, fists, booted feet, and unknown blunt objects. The assault took place in public. The Plaintiff sustained moderate injuries to her face, chest, and hand, requiring medical attention. She was treated with pain killers and an arm sling. Medical evidence indicated moderate force was applied and permanent injury was unlikely. The Defendant was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to a non-custodial sentence. The Plaintiff claimed she was unable to work for more than 2 weeks and that people broke into her shop during her absence, stealing US$300 cash and stock valued at US$24,248.50. The matter proceeded as an unopposed application for default judgment.

• What is the appropriate quantum of damages for pain and suffering arising from assault?
• What special damages (medical expenses) were proven and recoverable?
• Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to future medical expenses?
• Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to consequential damages for alleged theft from her shop during her recovery period?
• What principles apply to the assessment of damages in assault cases?

1. Defendant ordered to pay US$66.00 or equivalent in local currency at inter-market bank rate prevailing at time of payment, plus ZWL$800.00 as special damages. 2. Defendant ordered to pay US$1,750.00 or equivalent in local currency at inter-market bank rate prevailing at time of payment as general damages for pain and suffering. 3. Defendant ordered to pay interest at prescribed rate from date of summons to date of payment. 4. Costs of suit awarded to Plaintiff.

In assessing damages for assault: (1) Special damages must be proven with specificity through documentary evidence such as receipts, and expenses must be directly related to the assault and reasonable; (2) Claims for future medical expenses require supporting expert medical evidence expressing the possibility of such expenses, preferably as a percentage; (3) General damages for pain and suffering must be assessed conservatively based on precedent and the actual nature and severity of proven injuries; (4) Consequential damages require proof of a causal link between the wrongful act and the alleged consequential loss, and cannot be awarded on the basis of the plaintiff's word alone without corroborating evidence; (5) The aim of compensation is to place the victim as close as possible to the position they would have been in but for the wrongful conduct.

The court observed that the assessment of damages is one of the most perplexing tasks a court has to discharge, requiring the exercise of discretion and value judgment, with the ultimate product being judicious. The court noted with concern the Plaintiff's tendency to exaggerate her injuries and her inclusion of receipts pre-dating the assault by almost 12 months without explanation. The court expressed surprise at submissions made in heads of argument regarding ongoing difficulties and confinement to light work that were neither supported by medical evidence nor pleaded in the summons, declaration, or affidavit. The court emphasized that while no scales exist by which pain suffered can be measured, compensation should be determined by general considerations and precedent regardless of one's station in life, with conservatism being an important consideration.

This case provides guidance on the assessment of damages in assault cases in Zimbabwean law, particularly: (1) the application of conservative principles in awarding general damages for pain and suffering; (2) the strict requirement that special damages must be proven with specificity and supported by documentary evidence; (3) the necessity of medical evidence to support claims for future medical expenses; (4) the requirement for a clear causal link and proper evidentiary foundation for consequential damages claims; and (5) the court's willingness to exercise discretion to reduce excessive claims to reasonable and fair amounts based on precedent and the actual nature and severity of injuries sustained.