VICE-PRESIDENT Kembo Campbell Dugish Mohadi’s “girlfriend”, who is being sued for $1,5 million in adultery damages by the Zanu PF leader’s wife Tambudzani Bhudagi Mohadi (nee Muleya), has admitted she is having quality time with the country’s number two, but denied liability of the claimed damages.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Tambudzani, who is also a Senator for Beitbridge Constituency, last month filed summons against Juliet Mutavhatsindi, accusing her of bedding Mohadi with whom she is still engaged despite a pending divorce matter in the High Court.
But in her plea filed by her lawyers, Mugiya and Macharaga Law Chambers on Thursday this week, Mutavhatsindi confirmed she was aware that Tambudzani and Mohadi were presently involved in litigation for the termination of the couple’s marital relationship, but denied having a hand in the couple’s separation.
“She (Mutavhatsindi) is aware that the plaintiff (Tambudzani) and Kembo Mohadi are presently involved in litigation in the High Court for the termination of the marriage relationship between them. By the time the defendant (Mutavhatsindi) developed a love relationship with the said Mohadi, in March 2018, the marriage relationship between him (Mohadi) and the plaintiff had irretrievably broken down and the two had not been staying together and sharing bed for a long time,” Mutavhatsindi said.
“The defendant did not inflict any contumelia upon the person of the plaintiff as alleged. The defendant denies alienating Kembo Mohadi’s affection for the plaintiff in any way and puts the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.”
Commenting on the quantum of claimed damages, Mutavhatsindi denied being the cause of Tambudzani’s loss of companionship, comfort and services with Mohadi, adding her claim was grossly outrageous and without foundation, either in facts or at law.
“The defendant denies being the cause of the plaintiff’s loss of companionship, comfort and services with Kembo Mohadi. The defendant accordingly denies liability in respect of any damages at all and in particular in the sum of $1,5 million claimed by the plaintiff and states that the plaintiff is put to the strictest proof of the amount in damages claimed,” she said.
“The plaintiff’s claim is grossly outrageous and without foundation, either in facts or in law. On its own it warrants dismissal of the claim with costs on attorney and client scale.
“The sum of $250 000 claimed for contumelia is without justification in fact and in law. The sum of $1,25 million for loss of affection, comfort, society and services is also without any justification in fact and in law.”
The matter is still pending and Tambudzani is represented by Messrs Scanlen and Holderness.