Pardon Chitongo v Commissioner General of Police and Minister of Home Affairs & Cultural Heritage

On 14 January 2019, during violent demonstrations in Epworth, the plaintiff, a 22-year-old commuter omnibus driver earning US$65 per week, was at his uncle's residence when police were dispersing demonstrators. While trying to leave the premises to go home, he was shot by police. A bullet went through his body and exited through his back, causing severe injuries to his lungs, liver, kidneys, and spinal cord. He was admitted to Parirenyatwa Hospital's ICU for 8 days, remained hospitalized for 3 months, and was later transferred to Ruwa Rehabilitation Centre until October 2019. His father found two bullet heads at the scene the next day. The shooting left the plaintiff permanently paraplegic and wheelchair-bound, with loss of one kidney and permanent damage to his colon, liver, and lumbar vertebrae L3. The plaintiff sued the police for damages arising from the shooting.

• Whether a member of the police service unlawfully shot the plaintiff in the course and scope of employment
• The nature and extent of injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the shooting
• The nature and quantification of damages for which the defendants are liable

Judgment granted in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of ZWL$3,731,822.00 against the defendants jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved. Interest at the prescribed rate to be calculated from the date of summons to the date of final payment. Defendants to pay costs of suit.

The state is vicariously liable for unlawful shootings committed by police officers during the course and scope of their employment when dispersing demonstrations. When assessing damages for gunshot injuries resulting in permanent disability, courts must consider: (1) special damages require strict proof through documentation; (2) claims for loss of earnings in informal employment must be substantiated by corroborating evidence beyond the plaintiff's testimony; (3) general damages for personal injury are compensatory, not punitive, and must reflect the severity and permanence of injuries; (4) awards for loss of amenities of life should account for the victim's age and life expectancy; and (5) the principle from Minister of Defence & Anor v Jackson 1990 (2) ZLR 1(SC) applies that general damages translate personal injuries into monetary compensation recognizing that money cannot replace a permanently injured physical frame.

The court observed that the defense witness's testimony about demonstrators displaying military-style precision in their formations and commands was used to suggest they might have had firearms, but this was speculation unsupported by evidence. The court noted that claims for embarrassment, affront to dignity, and degrading treatment are properly applicable in adultery cases rather than personal injury cases arising from shootings. The court also commented on the impact of hyperinflation on quotations for future medical expenses, recognizing that amounts quoted in 2019-2020 would have changed significantly by the time of judgment in 2022, and used this as justification for awarding the amounts claimed.

This case establishes important principles regarding state liability for unlawful police conduct during public order operations. It confirms that the state can be held vicariously liable for unlawful shootings by police officers acting in the course and scope of their employment during protest dispersal. The case also demonstrates the high standard of proof required for special damages claims, particularly for loss of earnings in informal employment contexts, while providing guidance on assessment of general damages for catastrophic permanent injuries suffered by young victims. It reflects the Zimbabwean courts' willingness to hold state actors accountable for excessive use of force and human rights violations during civil unrest, applying the compensatory principle that damages are designed to compensate victims rather than punish wrongdoers.