Tapiwa Shiri v Owen Vere

The plaintiff married Valerie Stella Shiri on 28 April 1996, and five children were born of the marriage. The plaintiff is a lecturer and businessman, and the couple lived a Christian life with the plaintiff serving as a church elder and his wife as a Sunday school teacher. The defendant, a married businessman, fellowshipped at the same church and had known the parties since bachelorhood. The plaintiff alleged that his wife committed adultery with the defendant, which she confessed to after his investigations. Despite the plaintiff's willingness to forgive her, the wife filed for divorce in 2017 (HC 4105/17) and deserted the matrimonial home. The plaintiff held the defendant responsible for the breakdown of his marriage. Their relationship deteriorated to the extent that the plaintiff alleged attempts to poison and kidnap him. The defendant initially defended the action but his defence was struck out on 10 October 2019, and the matter proceeded unopposed.

• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for adultery
• What amount of damages should be awarded for contumelia (injury to dignity/feelings)
• What amount of damages should be awarded for loss of consortium (loss of comfort and companionship)
• Whether damages should be awarded in United States dollars or RTGS dollars in light of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019

1. The defendant was ordered to pay damages as follows: (i) RTGS$20,000 for contumelia; (ii) RTGS$20,000 for lack of comfort. 2. The defendant was ordered to pay costs of suit.

In assessing damages for the delict of adultery, the court must consider: (a) the character of the woman involved; (b) the social and economic status of the parties; (c) whether the defendant has shown contrition and apologized; (d) the need for deterrent measures; and (e) the level of awards in similar cases. Courts make rough and ready assessments as the losses and humiliation cannot be truly measured in money. Claims in United States dollars initiated before 22 February 2019 must be deemed to have values in RTGS dollars at a one-to-one rate in accordance with s 22(1)(d) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, with the court considering the current market value of RTGS when making awards.

The court observed that it is a daunting task to place monetary value on the pain and suffering inflicted on a spouse by adulterous acts, citing Khumalo v Mandishona 1996 (1) ZLR 434 (H) and Muller v Vink 1972 (1) PGB 2. The court noted that awards cannot be regarded as even approximately an assessment of the value of a happy marriage which has been broken up or the value of a faithless spouse. The court commented on the deterioration of the relationship between the plaintiff and his wife, noting serious allegations including attempts to poison and kidnap the plaintiff, though these observations were not central to the assessment of damages.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it applies and confirms the established principles for assessing damages in adultery claims, including the factors of character, social and economic status, contrition, deterrence, and comparative awards. It also demonstrates the application of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 regarding currency conversion from USD to RTGS dollars in civil claims. The case illustrates the court's approach to moderate awards in adultery cases while recognizing the real harm suffered by an innocent spouse, including loss of consortium and dignity.