Published: 6 hours ago

Magistrate Sandra Mupindu has filed a lawsuit in the High Court against her husband's alleged mistress, Catherine Tatenda Chitopota, accusing her of "snatching" her husband and seeking damages for loss of consortium and contumelia (insult to dignity).

Mupindu's summons claims that Chitopota intruded into her marriage with Simon Mupindu around 2014 and began an ongoing sexual relationship with him. The magistrate alleges that this affair has caused her significant emotional distress and loss of companionship.

Chitopota, who now lives with Simon and has three children fathered by him, attempted to evade the lawsuit by filing exceptions pleading that the matter is prescribed-arguing that Mupindu's claims should have been raised earlier. She also argued that Mupindu condoned the adultery and accepted customary compensation, thus barring further claims. Additionally, Chitopota contended that Simon Mupindu should have been joined as a party in the lawsuit.

Chitopota told the court that Mupindu had known about the affair since 2014 and that both families received customary compensation, implying the matter had been resolved according to traditional law.

In response, Mupindu argued that the defense did not apply because the alleged adultery is a continuing wrong, with the affair persisting despite the summons. She also denied the need to join her husband in the proceedings to prove adultery.

Presiding over the case, High Court Judge Fatima Maxwell observed that claims for damages related to adultery generally prescribe three years after the cause of action arises-usually from the time of the act itself. However, because Mupindu alleged the sexual relationship continued beyond that period and even after the summons were issued, the judge ruled that the prescription defense did not apply.

Judge Maxwell further held that non-joinder of Simon Mupindu did not bar the case from proceeding. "No cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party," she noted, adding that the plaintiff had made clear she did not require the husband to be joined to prove her claims.

Regarding the exceptions filed by Chitopota, the judge ruled that they were not dispositive and dismissed them, stating, "The matter must therefore proceed."

In her declaration, Mupindu stated that despite Chitopota's knowledge of her peaceful marriage, the defendant pursued the relationship with her husband, resulting in the birth of three children. She further claimed that Chitopota's actions contributed to Simon moving out of the matrimonial home to live with the alleged mistress.

The case is ongoing, with the court expected to hear further arguments as the matter proceeds.
- NewZimbabwe