Stepson's US$60,000 lawsuit against widow dismissed

A High Court judge has dismissed a US$60,000 lawsuit filed by a Murewa man against his stepmother, ruling that there was no evidence of malicious intent in a criminal complaint she lodged with police that led to his brief prosecution.

Justice Christopher Dube-Banda threw out the claim brought by Collin Benyure, who had accused his stepmother, Anna Benyure, of initiating a malicious prosecution after she reported him to police for allegedly demolishing her seven-roomed house in Nyamakosi Village, Mutoko, in May this year.

Collin was seeking US$20,000 for emotional distress, US$30,000 for reputational damage, and US$10,000 for legal costs incurred during the failed prosecution.

The matter proceeded on the unopposed roll after Anna, a widow, did not file a notice to defend. However, despite the procedural advantage, the judge dismissed Collin's application, stating that he had failed to prove any malicious conduct or wrongful intent on the part of his stepmother.

According to the court record, Anna Benyure told police that she had received an anonymous phone call on 8 May 2024, alleging that her house at the Benyure homestead had been destroyed by Collin. Upon visiting the property, she found the structure demolished and unroofed, which she reported to the authorities.

In her police report, Anna named her stepson only as a suspect, explicitly stating that she had not witnessed him committing the act and was simply relaying what she had been told. Based on that information and subsequent police investigations, Collin was arrested and later cleared of the charges.

In his ruling, Justice Dube-Banda said the widow's actions did not amount to instigating criminal proceedings and that the decision to arrest and prosecute Collin lay solely with law enforcement.

"Her conduct cannot be said to amount to an active instigation of criminal proceedings," the judge said. "She confined herself to giving information on what she believed had transpired."

He also found that there was no evidence of malice or lack of reasonable and probable cause that could support a malicious prosecution claim.

"The allegation that the defendant made a false statement is not in sync with the facts of this case," Justice Dube-Banda added. "There was a demolished house. The police could not have arrested, and the prosecution could not have proceeded if there had been no demolished house."

The judge also criticised the plaintiff's affidavit for merely recycling the contents of the original summons, calling it unhelpful in substantiating the claim.

"The plaintiff has not proved an absence of reasonable and probable cause operating on the mind of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove the aspect of malice in the context of a claim for malicious prosecution," he concluded.

The case highlights the legal threshold required to succeed in malicious prosecution claims, particularly the need to prove both a lack of reasonable cause and malicious intent, which the court found lacking in this instance.