EXPOSED! Secret Affair Rocks College Boss as Court Awards Wife US$2,500

A secret workplace affair has ended in court as Guinea Fowl Primary School Deputy Head, wife to Mkoba Teachers College Vice Principal in an extra marital affair with his administrator, wins US$2,500 in adultery damages. The court found the affair caused humiliation, emotional trauma and illness, bringing a dramatic marriage betrayal case to a close.

EXPOSED! Secret Affair Rocks College Boss as Court Awards Wife US$2,500
Joseph Musarurwa, Vice Principal at Mkoba Teachers' College, delivers remarks during a public function. He was central to a civil adultery damages case that attracted widespread public interest in Gweru.

Gweru — The Gweru Magistrates' Court has awarded Guinea Fowl Primary School Deputy Headmistress Chipo Musarurwa US$2,500 in adultery damages after finding that Mkoba Teachers' College Administrative Assistant, Shylet Mushayavanhu, knowingly engaged in an adulterous relationship with her husband, Joseph Musarurwa, who is Vice Principal at the college

The court found that Mushayavanhu was aware that Musarurwa, the Vice Principal at Mkoba Teachers' College, was lawfully married but nevertheless maintained the relationship.

In its ruling, the court held that the affair caused Chipo Musarurwa humiliation, injury to her dignity and emotional distress after it became public knowledge within the community.

The Magistrate also found that Mushayavanhu told Chipo Musarurwa she was the reason the latter was no longer enjoying conjugal relations with her husband, describing the remarks as intended to humiliate and emotionally distress the plaintiff.

Shylet Mushayavanhu.

Medical records produced during the trial showed that Chipo Musarurwa became ill and took sick leave from work following the emotional trauma.

The court accepted the records as corroborating her evidence that her illness was linked to the defendant's conduct.

Chipo Musarurwa told the court that she had initially sought to resolve the matter outside the courts by demanding a cow from the defendant as compensation, but the request was ignored, prompting her to institute legal proceedings.

During cross-examination, Chipo Musarurwa challenged the defendant over telephone calls involving her husband.

"You are denying, but how many times have I called my husband and the phone was received by you? And how many times did I phone you and told you to give the phone to the owner, my husband, whom I wanted to talk to?" she asked.

Mushayavanhu denied the claim and urged the court to dismiss the action.

She argued that the damages sought were excessive, maintained that any relationship had ended months before the hearing and asked the court to consider that she was a civil servant supporting four children.

The court, however, ruled in favour of Chipo Musarurwa after considering the evidence before it.

The Magistrate also noted that the defendant contacted Joseph Musarurwa on the eve of the hearing, resulting in another confrontation.

Although Joseph Musarurwa was not a party to the proceedings, the court said the incident formed part of the factual background demonstrating that the dispute remained active until the matter was heard.

The court further observed that the defendant had neither apologised nor expressed remorse.

While noting that the absence of an apology was not, on its own, a basis for increasing damages, the Magistrate said it was a relevant consideration when assessing the circumstances of the case.

Chipo Musarurwa had initially claimed US$50,000 before reducing her claim to US$20,000, while the defendant argued that an award of US$1,000 would be appropriate.

The court rejected both figures and instead awarded US$2,500, saying the amount fairly compensated the plaintiff for the humiliation, injury to dignity, emotional distress and consequential suffering proved during the trial.

Mushayavanhu was also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

In delivering judgment, the court said there is no fixed tariff for adultery damages in Zimbabwe and that each case must be determined on its own facts, with awards reflecting the extent of the emotional harm proved rather than serving as punishment.