John Katskwe v. Mhondoro Muchamaiwa

 

[Using the Legal Age of Majority Act, the decision says that the father has lost his right under customary law to sue for damages for seduction of his daughter who is a Major. First time the Legal Age of Majority Act was used to overrule customary law.]

 

Reportable (53)                                                           Judgment No. S.C. 87/84

                                                                                    Civil Appeal No. 99/84

 

John Katskwe v. Mhondoro Muchamaiwa

 

Supreme Court of Zimbawe

Dumbutshena, CG, Gubbay, JA & Waddington, JA,

Harare, August, 1 & September 7, 1984

 

D.A.B. Robinson for the appellant

S.J.R. Chihambakwe, for the respondent

 

            Dumbutshena, CJ: In this appeal there is only one ground of appeal which

 

reads:

 

“Take Notice that the above-named Appellant hereby notes an appeal against the judgment delivered by the Community Court for the Province of Midlands held at Chivhu on the 5th January, 1984, in the case No. 224 of 1983 between the above-named Respondent as Plaintiff and the Appellant as Defendant on the ground, raised in limine, that the Presiding Officer erred in law holding that notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent's daughter, Molly (born 31st March, 1963) was a major at the time when it is admitted by Molly that she first had sexual intercourse with the Appellant, being the 15th day of May, 1983, the Respondent has locus standi and is entitled to claim damages for the seduction of his said daughter, Molly.

 

In the premises the Appellant prays that the judgment of the Community Court for the Province of Midlands held at Chivhu in the case No. 224 of 1983 be set aside, with costs, and that the Appellant's objection that the respondent has no locus standi to claim damages for the seduction of his said daughter, Molly, be upheld.

 

It appears from the record that no evidence was led before the Community Court. If evidence was led there is no record of such evidence. However, it is apparent from the Notice of Appeal that the appellant, then defendant, raised a point in limine that the respondent, then plaintiff, had no locus standi and was not entitled to claim damages for the seduction of his daughter who had by then attained the age of 18 years. In fact the daughter was born on the 31 March, 1963.