A magistrate named Sandra Mupindu is taking legal action against her husband’s lover, Catherine Tatenda Chitopota, alleging that she took him away.
Mupindu has submitted a legal notice to the High Court seeking compensation for the loss of dignity and companionship.
Nevertheless, the claimed lover attempted to avoid the legal action despite demonstrating no desire to end the relationship.
Chitopota has given birth to three children with Simon Mupindu, the husband of the magistrate, with whom she currently resides.
Chitopota acknowledged the claims, arguing that the issue is time-barred.
She accepted the statement in court that Mupindu approved of the adultery and was compensated according to customary law.
Chitopota also mentioned that Simon was expected to be part of the proceedings.
She claimed that Mupindu learned about her relationship with Simon in 2014, which is when her actions became clear.
She informed the court that Mupindu requested traditional compensation, which was given to both her family members and herself.
Mupindu retaliated, contending that the defense is not applicable to an ongoing injustice.
Mupindu also challenged the claim that there was no co-accused, stating that she does not require the uninvolved party to demonstrate adultery.
In determining the case, High Court Judge Fatima Maxwell stated that a claim for compensation is subject to time limits based on the specific situation.
In my opinion, infidelity harms, and the legal claim is finalized upon the occurrence of sexual relations.
In this case, the act is considered to have occurred in 2024.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff mentioned that it was not a single occurrence. The sexual relationship persisted even after the summonses were issued, and the plaintiff’s stance, which went unchallenged, was that the actions were taking place while the case was being pursued.
The court observed, ‘According to her, the defendant does not appear to have an intention of ending this sexual relationship.’
The judge stated this, meaning that the parts of the claim concerning adultery that took place more than three years before the start of the lawsuit are reduced.
Nevertheless, since it was not contested that the acts of sexual intercourse are ongoing, the defense of prescription is unlikely to prevail.
Maxwell stated, “No issue or matter should be dismissed due to the incorrect joining or failure to join any party, and the court has the authority in any case or matter to resolve the disputes or questions involved as they pertain to the rights and interests of the parties involved in the case or matter.”
The Plaintiff’s assertion, therefore, should not be rejected due to the absence of a party.
Regardless, the Plaintiff mentioned that she does not require the non-joined party to establish her case.
The errors reported do not resolve the issue. The special plea has failed. Therefore, the case must continue.
In her statement, Mupindu claimed that the defendant entered into the marital relationship between herself and her husband around 2014 and then began a sexual relationship with her husband.
Mupindu stated that this was regardless of Chitopota’s awareness of the loving and harmonious marital relationship between the plaintiff and her spouse.
She added that three children were born to Chitopota, fathered by her spouse.
Further, Chitopota has been responsible for her husband leaving the family home to reside with her.
Copyright 2025 New Zimbabwe. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media ().
Tagged: Zimbabwe, Legal and Judicial Affairs, Southern Africa
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
