The 2nd respondent (Drusilla Mungofa) instituted divorce proceedings against the applicant (Stewart Mungofa) in Case No. HC 1195/04. The applicant filed a counter-claim citing the 1st respondent (William Sande) as the 2nd defendant, claiming adultery damages and alleging that the 1st respondent was the man with whom the 2nd respondent had committed adultery. During the pre-trial conference, the court queried the propriety of joining the 1st respondent in a counter-claim. The applicant then brought an application in terms of Order 13 Rule 87 of the High Court Rules to formally join the 1st respondent to HC 1195/04. The 1st respondent had filed pleadings out of an abundance of caution but objected to being joined to the divorce proceedings, arguing he had no interest in those proceedings and would be inconvenienced by having to sit through them.
The application was dismissed with costs.
A defendant in an action cannot join a third party as a co-defendant by way of counter-claim. A counter-claim (claim in reconvention) under Rule 120 has the effect of a cross-action and can only be directed against the plaintiff in the main action, not against other parties. Rule 87 of the High Court Rules, which permits joinder of parties, applies to joinder to the main claim, not to counter-claims. The proper procedure for a plaintiff wishing to claim divorce and adultery damages is to institute proceedings against both the spouse and the paramour as co-defendants in the original action, not for a defendant to attempt to introduce the paramour through a counter-claim.
The court observed that following the 1985 amendment to the Matrimonial Causes Act, a counter-claim for divorce based on adultery cannot be strictly termed a counter-claim, as fault and misconduct are no longer relevant to the existence of grounds for divorce (only to ancillary matters such as property distribution or custody). The court noted with approval the principle from Marimba v Marimba that courts should not delve into the "minutiae of ancient domestic grievances" or "resurrect the old spectre of guilt and innocence" in divorce proceedings, except where misconduct is relevant to issues such as custody or, in limited circumstances, property distribution. The court also commented that Rule 273, which relates to service of summons on paramours, only applies where the plaintiff (as dominus litus) makes allegations of adultery in the summons and declaration, and does not assist a defendant seeking to join a paramour via counter-claim.
This case establishes important principles in Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding the limits of counter-claims and joinder of parties in matrimonial proceedings. It clarifies that a defendant cannot use a counter-claim to introduce third parties (such as alleged paramours) into proceedings; such parties can only be joined by the plaintiff who is dominus litus. The case reinforces the procedural distinction between main claims and counter-claims, and the requirement that counter-claims must be directed against the plaintiff, not against third parties or co-defendants. It also reflects the post-1985 no-fault approach to divorce in Zimbabwe, where adultery allegations are no longer central to establishing grounds for divorce, though they may remain relevant to ancillary issues like property distribution or custody.