Can you still sue for adultery in Zimbabwe? The answer is yes.
Background
A recent High Court decision serves as a timely reminder that claims for adultery damages remain actionable under Zimbabwean law and that the courts will draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence where direct proof is unavailable.
The plaintiff brought a claim against the alleged paramour of her husband following the breakdown of a marriage that had lasted more than twenty years. She claimed US$15 000 for loss of consortium and US$15 000 for contumelia.
Loss of consortium refers to the loss of companionship and the normal benefits of married life.
Contumelia refers to the injury to dignity and humiliation suffered by the innocent spouse.
The Defence
The defendant denied the relationship and advanced an unusual argument. She declared that the plaintiff’s husband was in fact her half-brother, making a romantic relationship impossible. No documentary evidence was produced to support this claim.
How Was the Relationship Proved?
The court reiterated that adultery is rarely proved through direct evidence. Courts are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence. In this case, the key facts were:
- The husband introduced the defendant publicly as his wife
- The defendant adopted the husband’s surname
- The defendant was listed as the husband’s spouse on medical aid
On the balance of probabilities, the court found that an adulterous relationship existed.
The Award
The plaintiff succeeded in her claim. However, the damages awarded were significantly lower than the amounts claimed. This is a reflection of the courts’ consistently restrained approach to quantum in adultery matters.
| Head of Damage | Amount Awarded |
|---|---|
| Loss of Consortium | US$4 000 |
| Contumelia | US$4 000 |
| Total | US$8 000 plus costs |
Key Takeaway
Adultery damages remain part of Zimbabwean law. The primary challenge in these cases is rarely the legal principle, it is proving the relationship on a balance of probabilities. As this case shows, circumstantial evidence, carefully presented, can be sufficient.