Zimbabwe High Court: Special Damages Proof Without Receipts Valid

• The Zimbabwe High Court ordered a new assessment of special damages for Masiiwa Senga, who was injured by a municipal truck.
• The magistrates' court had initially rejected Senga's US$7,220 special damages claim for transport, maid services, food, and medication due to a lack of receipts.
• The High Court ruled that the absence of documentary evidence does not automatically extinguish a claim for special damages.
• Judges stated that sufficiently precise oral evidence, with a clear calculation formula, must be assessed by the court.
• Senga's dental claim was not reconsidered because it involved quotations for proposed treatment, not proof of incurred expenses.

The High Court emphasized that there is no legal principle dictating that special damages cannot be awarded without documentary evidence.

The Zimbabwe High Court has mandated a new assessment of special damages for Masiiwa Senga, a 45-year-old woman who sustained injuries after being struck by a municipal truck. The ruling clarifies that the absence of physical receipts does not automatically invalidate a claim for special damages, provided sufficiently precise oral evidence is presented.

Senga was hit by an Eicher Pro 5025T heavy truck, owned by the City of Mutare and driven by Vincent Mupfigo, on April 13, 2022, at a robot-controlled intersection in Mutare's central business district. Mupfigo, who was acting in the course of his employment, was subsequently convicted of negligent driving. Senga initiated legal proceedings, seeking a total of US$33,720 in damages.

Her claim included US$26,500 for general damages, covering pain and suffering, disfigurement, permanent disability, and the alleged loss of a boyfriend due to her facial injuries. Additionally, she sought US$7,220 in special damages to cover expenses for transport, maid services, food, and medication. While the magistrates' court awarded her US$6,000 in general damages, it rejected the entire US$7,220 special damages claim, citing a lack of documentary proof such as receipts.

Justices Sijabuliso Siziba and Judge President Isaac Muzenda, presiding over the High Court, found that the magistrate had erred by rejecting the special damages claim solely due to the absence of receipts. The High Court emphasized that there is no legal principle dictating that special damages cannot be awarded without documentary evidence. The court clarified that the purpose of documentary evidence is to establish precision, not to serve as the exclusive form of proof for incurred expenses.

The High Court was particularly critical of the magistrate's approach to expenses like transport and maid services, noting that formal records for such expenditures are often not generated. Justice Siziba questioned the practicality of expecting payslips or employment contracts for domestic workers in everyday scenarios. The judges stated that if a court finds that claimed figures for services are proven to its satisfaction through exact and precise oral testimony, accompanied by a clear formula for calculation, it must assess that evidence rather than dismiss the claim.

According to the High Court, the magistrate had effectively abandoned the assessment process midway, despite acknowledging that Senga had incurred inconvenience and expenses. The proper judicial approach, as outlined by the High Court, involves first determining whether the expenses were genuinely incurred and then assessing their value based on the available evidence, ensuring sufficient precision in the calculation.

This judgment from the Zimbabwe High Court provides crucial guidance on the assessment of special damages, particularly regarding the proof required. It underscores that while documentary evidence is ideal for precision, its absence does not automatically defeat a claim. Instead, sufficiently precise oral evidence can be accepted, allowing for a more flexible approach to proving incurred costs in personal injury cases like the Masiiwa Senga damages assessment.

As a result of the High Court's decision, Senga's appeal was allowed, and her case has been remitted to the magistrates' court for a fresh computation of the special damages. This means the court will now have to assess the value of her claimed transport, maid services, food, and medication expenses based on the oral evidence presented, even without receipts. This ruling significantly impacts how special damages evidence is considered in Zimbabwe, particularly for City of Mutare accident damages and similar claims.

However, the High Court did uphold the rejection of Senga's dental claim, which ranged from US$4,180 to US$4,500. This was because she had only provided quotations for proposed treatment, not proof that the money had already been spent. This distinction highlights that while proof of special damages without receipts is now more feasible, the expenses must still have been *incurred*, not merely anticipated. The judges also noted a separate concern regarding the original proceedings concerning the first respondent, though specific details were not elaborated.

This ruling clarifies that in Zimbabwe, the absence of documentary evidence like receipts does not automatically defeat a claim for special damages, allowing lawyers to rely on precise oral evidence for assessment. Practitioners should review existing and future personal injury claims to ensure all incurred expenses are properly presented, even without formal documentation, and be prepared to argue for their value based on sufficiently precise oral testimony.

Source: Original reporting via NewsDay Zimbabwe