Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
A MAN from Mutoko’s attempt to seek justice in a malicious prosecution case has been brought to an end in the High Court.
Collin Benyure’s claim against his 71-year-old stepmother, Anna Benyure, was dismissed in a ruling that underscored the importance of legal principles over emotional grievances, even when the opposing party offers no defence.
Collin had demanded USD$20 000 for emotional stress, USD$30 000 for reputational damage, and USD$10 000 for legal costs following his arrest in May of last year.
His stepmother had reported him to the police, alleging that he had demolished her seven-roomed house at the Benyure homestead in Nyamakosi Village. However, the court found that his claim failed to meet the legal thresholds required for malicious prosecution.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Christopher Dube-Banda clarified the standards governing such cases.
“The grant of an order is a judicial function,” he explained. “The court must be satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case in terms of the requirements of the law.”
These requirements include proving that the defendant instigated the prosecution, acted without reasonable cause, and did so with malice, among other conditions. In this case, Collin failed to satisfy these elements.
Central to the judgment was the determination that Anna Benyure did not actively instigate the prosecution.
Justice Dube-Banda said merely reporting facts to the police does not equate to initiating legal proceedings.
“The defendant did no more than tell the police the facts as she knew them and left it to the police to investigate the matter,” the judge noted.
The elderly woman’s report was based on an anonymous call and her own observations of the demolished structure. She provided no direct evidence implicating Collin, and the decision to arrest and charge him rested solely with the police. The court also examined whether the woman acted without reasonable or probable cause.
Justice Dube-Banda noted that the elderly woman honestly believed her house had been destroyed and suspected Collin due to prior disputes and the anonymous tip.
“The defendant’s belief was based on information available to her, and there is no evidence of malice,” he stated.
The existence of the demolished house, which was undisputed, further weakened Collin’s claim that the report was false or malicious.
Collin’s case struggled under scrutiny, with Justice Dube-Banda describing his evidence as “merely recycling the contents of the summons and declaration”.
The court ruled that there was no proof of malice or abuse of legal processes by the elderly woman.
Furthermore, while the criminal case against Collin was dismissed, the judge noted that the termination of proceedings in his favour did not automatically validate his claim for malicious prosecution.
“The fact that the proceedings were terminated in favour of the plaintiff is of no moment,” the judge remarked, pointing out that the dismissal was based on a lack of direct evidence rather than any falsehood in the woman’s report.
In his remarks, Justice Dube-Banda underscored the challenges of proving malicious prosecution claims.
As a result, the court dismissed the claim, rendering the question of damages irrelevant.
