High Court judge, Justice Joel Mambara has ordered a Masvingo woman, Eugenia Machaya to pay US$25,000 adultery damages to the wife of a man she snatched six years ago.
A default order was granted in favour of the complainant, Viola Dhudhla Machingura after Machaya failed to attend pretrial meetings.
Machingura had sued Machaya for US$50,000 after she invaded her 41-year-old marriage.
Broken down, US$30,000 was for contumelia and US$20,000 was for loss of consortium, arising from a protracted adulterous relationship between Machaya and her husband.
The court heard the relationship started in 2019 and Machaya now has two children with Dhudhla's husband.
"The plaintiff, a retired university lecturer and church elder, testified through affidavit to public humiliation in her congregation and community, severe emotional trauma requiring medical treatment for diabetes, hypertension and depression, and the stripping away of her role in the family estate (bank accounts, farm operations and vehicles)," the court heard.
"Since 2019 the plaintiff's husband has cohabited with the defendant; intimacy, companionship and joint family life have ceased entirely. The marriage now subsists only in name," court papers further show.
Machaya, despite the service, elected to remain absent and therefore offered no apology or mitigation.
The matter was set down on the unopposed roll after her plea was struck out for non-attendance at the pre-trial conference and her subsequent application for rescission was deemed abandoned.
Liability was therefore not in issue and the court was only seized with the assessment of quantum under r 25(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021.
While handing down his judgement, Justice Mambara said that when fixing adultery damages, the court considers the nature and duration of the marriage, knowledge of the marriage by the adulterer, character and social-economic standing of the parties and the extent of contumelia and loss of consortium proved.
The judge also looked into contrition (or lack thereof) by the adulterer, the need for deterrence, and the level of awards in comparable cases.
Mambara said there is no reported High Court decision after that of Taoneyi vs Madzima (HH 18-25) has exceeded the composite figure of US$20,000.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"Inflation-adjusted though that award is, it remains the highest recent comparable award placed before the court," he said.
The judge said the plaintiff had a long, otherwise stable marriage.
He said there was a total lack of contrition by Machaya, adding that such offenders deserve deterrent penalties.
"The court is satisfied that an award modestly above the most recent ceiling of US $20,000 is justified to reflect both changing economic realities and the egregious facts of this case.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of US $25,000 made up as follows:(a) Contumelia: US$16,000 (b) Loss of consortium: US$9,000."
He ruled that interest shall run on the above amount at the prescribed rate of 5 % per annum from the date of this judgment to the date of full and final payment.
Machaya will also pay Dhudhla's costs of suit.
