Rape victim wins $6 500 damages over abortion

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter
A Rape victim has been awarded $6 500 damages in a case in which she was seeking compensation from the State for failing to provide her access to safe abortion.

She had sought $10 000 damages against the State, but High Court judge Justice Esther Muremba reduced the award to $6 500 plus interest from the date of the judgment yesterday.

The matter was brought to the High Court for quantification following a decision of the Supreme Court in March last year that allowed the suit to proceed and giving the High Court the power to decide the figure to set the damages.

This was after Home Affairs and Health and Child Care Ministers, in their official capacity and on the basis of their responsibility for their subordinates’ faults, were found liable for pain and suffering experienced by the victim as a result of the failure of the two ministries’ workers to prevent her pregnancy.

“The applicant went through a horrific and traumatic experience,” said Justice Muremba.

“The respondents’ employees should have done their best to ensure that she received the necessary assistance on time.”

The judge said the State workers in the two ministries’ knew that time was of the essence and that it was a matter life and death for the victim, but they chose not to help her at all.

“They acted as if she was to blame for what had befallen her,” she said.

The victim was attacked and raped during a robbery at her Chegutu home nine years ago, and fell pregnant.

Her efforts to have lawful abortion failed as a result of State workers’ negligence.

Through her lawyer, Mr Isaiah Mureriwa of Scanlen and Holderness, the victim brought the claim before Justice Muremba to determine the quantification of the damages.

He submitted that the claim of $10 000 for damages for physical, mental and emotional pain and suffering experienced by the victim was reasonable and justified.

He said the Supreme Court in its ruling conceded the novelty of the case.

“Never in this jurisdiction had the court been called upon to determine the extent of aqualian liability, particularly in such a case where a woman who fell pregnant as a result of a rape sought damages for failure by the authorities to prevent such pregnancy,” said Mr Mureriwa.

“The novelty extends to the matter before this court. There are no comparable cases within this jurisdiction to guide this court in awarding damages.”

Mr Mureriwa, who sought to persuade the court to accept the claim of $10 000, relied on several cases from other jurisdictions that have dealt with cases which he argued were similar to the victim’s.

The lawyer insisted that the damages should be paid as at the time she filed her suit in 2006 plus interest at the prescribed rate per annum.

The ministers did not respond to the claim.