Mazibuko’s $25 000 fruit juice lawsuit thrown out of court
facts exist for the formulation of a basis for a claim for damages,” she said.
The judge said Mr Mazibuko failed to sustain the amount of $25 000 as damages suffered.
“Therefore, my conclusion is that the plaintiff failed to prove any injury that leads to compensation as no basis whatsoever for the claim was laid in terms of medical evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff ’s claim is dismissed with costs,” ruled Justice Moyo.
In papers before the court, Mr Mazibuko demanded $25 000 from the supermarket being general damages for psychological trauma, physical pain and loss of expectation of life he allegedly suffered as a result of alleged gross negligence when he unsuspectingly consumed the beverage.
“On or about the end of June to the beginning of July 2014, I purchased several varieties of one litre boxes of Spar branded fruit juice from Broadway Spar Supermarket. Sometime towards the end of July, I opened and poured into a glass half the contents of one of the mixed berry fruit juice and returned the other half to the refrigerator,” he said.
Mr Mazibuko said while drinking the remaining half of the juice from the box, he felt something was not right and spat the substance back into the box packaging.
The lawyer said he became suspicious and on investigating to ascertain the nature of the substance, he discovered a disgusting, pitch-black and greasy “poisonous” substance.
The object in the juice, said Mr Mazibuko, resembled a piece of a decomposed skin of a mammal with visible traces of meat tissue.
He said the defendant was grossly negligent and breached the duty of care owed to the customer by selling a mixed berry fruit juice containing a harmful substance.
The lawyer said he suffered physical pain and discomfort after developing a stomach problem which arose from consuming the contaminated drink.
Mr Mazibuko, a martial arts enthusiast, said he had to cancel a trip to Harare for a week-long karate seminar with his overseas based instructor to seek medical attention.
Broadway Spar, through its lawyers, Dube-Banda, Nzarayapenga and Partners, denied negligence and argued that they were mere retailers who received and sold drinks in sealed packaging.
“The defendant is a mere retailer who has no specialised or practical means, be it expertise or apparatus of finding out the condition and state of the variety of products which it received in sealed packaging and sold without further inspection apart from the shelf life,” said the defendant’s lawyers.
The supermarket queried how the quantified damages of $25 000 were arrived at.
“Even if plaintiff may have suffered damages, which is denied, such would not have been to an extent of $25 000. Plaintiff has failed to quantify such damages and is put to proof thereof,” said the Broadway Spar lawyers. — @mashnets