HARARE – The High Court of Zimbabwe threw out an adultery lawsuit brought by a British citizen against another Briton, citing lack of jurisdiction over the parties.
Justice Emilia Muchawa ruled that the court did not have the power to entertain the lawsuit because both parties are domiciled outside Zimbabwe.
Ms. Jill Chawapiwa Chikore, a Zimbabwean citizen, had sued Hellen Maworera, also a Zimbabwean citizen, for allegedly having an adulterous relationship with her husband, Jabulani Tawanda Chikore, since July 2020.
The couple was married in Zimbabwe in 1998. Ms. Chikore claimed that the adultery took place in Harare, Zimbabwe, at their matrimonial home.
In her lawsuit, Ms. Chikore sought adultery damages of USD 50,000.
However, Ms. Maworera challenged the jurisdiction of the court through a special plea, arguing that both parties were British citizens permanently residing in the United Kingdom and that she had not consented to the jurisdiction of the Zimbabwean court.
Ms. Maworera further argued that Ms. Chikore had not offered security for costs as required by law for suing a defendant who is not a resident of Zimbabwe. She also pointed out that the summons and declaration did not properly address the issue of jurisdiction.
Justice Muchawa agreed with Ms. Maworera’s arguments.
“It is trite that in order for a court to make an effective and binding decision on a case, it has to have both subject matter jurisdiction (the power to hear the type of case) and the personal matter jurisdiction (the power over the parties to the case),” the judge said.
The court further noted that while it had jurisdiction over the subject matter, the issue of personal jurisdiction remained unresolved.
“In casu, it is clear that the court may very well be unable to give effect to its judgment without an attachment of the defendant’s person or her property,” Justice Muchawa said.
The judge further criticised the way the lawsuit was filed. “It is clear from the summons and declaration that the plaintiff has not made adequate averments to establish jurisdiction,” the judge observed.
Ms. Chikore had attempted to counter Ms. Maworera’s argument regarding security for costs by pointing out that if Ms. Maworera considered herself a resident of Zimbabwe, then she would not be entitled to claim security for costs.
Justice Muchawa dismissed this argument.
“The raising of this point cannot be said to equate to a consent to the jurisdiction of the court in such circumstances,” he ruled.
She dismissed Ms. Chikore’s lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction. The judge ordered Ms. Chikore to pay costs on an ordinary scale.
Ms. Maworera had requested costs on a higher scale, arguing that the lawsuit was an abuse of the court process. Justice Muchawa, however, found that Ms. Chikore’s actions did not warrant such a penalty.
