Nyasha Koroka v Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company

On 10 January 2010, the plaintiff was walking past a low-hanging, high voltage electrical cable belonging to the defendant in Banket District when the dangerously exposed cable made contact with her arm. She was electrocuted and lost consciousness. She sustained third-degree electrical burns to her back, left lower limb, and left upper limb (the entry point). Her left hand was gangrenous up to the mid-forearm, resulting in a below-elbow amputation of her left forearm. The exit point was the left lateral aspect of her head. Long-term complications included risk of cataracts, seizures, chronic pain, permanent disability, and phantom limb pain. The plaintiff was a 36-year-old single mother of three teenage daughters, previously earning US$3,500 per annum as a small-scale tobacco farmer. She initially sought compensation from the defendant but met resistance and procrastination. Three years later, the defendant agreed only to settle medical expenses. The plaintiff commenced action on 13 September 2013. The parties agreed on liability but disputed quantum of damages.

• What is the appropriate quantum of damages for pain and suffering resulting from severe electrical burns and amputation?
• What is the appropriate quantum of damages for loss of amenities of life and disfigurement?
• What is the appropriate quantum of damages for past and future loss of earnings where there is limited actuarial evidence?
• What is the appropriate quantum of damages for future medical expenses?
• From what date should interest on damages run?

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff: (1) US$5,000 for pain and suffering; (2) US$15,000 for loss of amenities of life and disfigurement; (3) US$11,910 for future medical expenses; (4) US$20,000 for loss of past and future earnings; (5) Interest at the prescribed rate on items 1, 2, and 3 from 13 September 2013 until payment in full; (6) Interest at the prescribed rate on loss of earnings from the date of judgment until payment in full; (7) Costs of suit.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) In assessing damages for pain and suffering, courts must account for inflation and passage of time when comparing awards to precedent cases, and may draw on their own experience applying broad considerations including the defendant's conduct; (2) Damages for disfigurement should be merged into damages for loss of amenities of life; (3) When assessing loss of amenities for a single parent who is the sole breadwinner, courts must consider the impact on the plaintiff's ability to care for dependents, marriage prospects, and psychological trauma to both plaintiff and children; (4) Where there is pecuniary loss but insufficient actuarial evidence, courts must nonetheless make an award that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, which may be based on reasonable estimates of income shortfall multiplied by remaining years of life expectancy; (5) Interest on general damages and special damages may run from the date of summons (rather than judgment) where the defendant knew it owed compensation and has acted obstructively or in bad faith; (6) Interest on future loss of earnings runs from the date of judgment as that is when the quantum becomes determinate.

Mushore J made several significant non-binding observations: (1) The court expressed strong criticism of the defendant's conduct, describing it as "obstructive, insensitive and dispassionate" and noting that the defendant avoided a round table conference and failed to communicate properly with the plaintiff; (2) The court observed that the case could have reached earlier resolution had the defendant acted appropriately; (3) The court noted with sympathy the plight of the plaintiff's daughter Diana Koroka, who made a plea for family counselling and described the emotional trauma of seeing her active mother rendered helpless, the humiliation at school visits, and her inability to move on with her life; (4) The court implicitly criticized the defendant's characterization of its settlement offer as a "compassionate gesture," stating it was not satisfied the defendant truly believed this to be the case; (5) The court observed that the plaintiff's attempts to prosecute the claim were made "hellishly frustrating" by the defendant's conduct; (6) The court expressed sympathy for the plaintiff's need for courage to continue caring for her children and suggested the award would hopefully assist in obtaining psychological counselling for the family.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean delictual law for several reasons: (1) It provides guidance on quantification of damages for severe electrical injury cases, particularly those involving amputation and permanent disability; (2) It demonstrates judicial willingness to account for inflation and passage of time when comparing awards to precedent cases; (3) It illustrates the court's approach to assessing damages for loss of amenities where the plaintiff is a single parent and sole breadwinner, including consideration of psychological impact on children; (4) It affirms the principle from Professor Feltoe that courts must make fair and reasonable awards for pecuniary loss even in the absence of actuarial evidence; (5) It shows judicial criticism of dilatory and obstructive conduct by defendants in personal injury claims; (6) It clarifies that interest can run from the date when the defendant knew it owed compensation rather than from judgment date, particularly where the defendant has acted in bad faith.