Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

Runako Punungwe v Halsteds Builders Express and Old Mutual

HH 481-25

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
21 August 2025
Citation
HH 481-25
Neutral Citation
[2025] ZWHH 481
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Trial

Bench

Presiding
MUSITHU J
Full Bench
MUSITHU J
Areas of Law
DelictPersonal InjuryNegligence
Keywords
automated doorpersonal injurynegligenceaquilian actiondamageschronic ankle instability
Tags
negligencepersonal injurydamagesaquilian action
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • N
  • o
  • s
  • t
  • a
  • t
  • u
  • t
  • e
  • s
  • w
  • e
  • r
  • e
  • c
  • i
  • t
  • e
  • d
  • i
  • n
  • t
  • h
  • i
  • s
  • j
  • u
  • d
  • g
  • m
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • .
  • T
  • h
  • e
  • c
  • a
  • s
  • e
  • w
  • a
  • s
  • d
  • e
  • c
  • i
  • d
  • e
  • d
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • i
  • r
  • e
  • l
  • y
  • o
  • n
  • c
  • o
  • m
  • m
  • o
  • n
  • l
  • a
  • w
  • p
  • r
  • i
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • p
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • .
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the defendant was negligent in operating the automated sliding door","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Door operation, absence of warnings, sanitizing point location"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and the quantum thereof","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Extent of injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Partial success of claim"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The plaintiff, a 57-year-old woman, sustained ankle injuries when an automated sliding door at the defendant's shop hit her foot. She claimed damages for negligence, alleging the defendant failed to maintain a safe door system and warn customers of potential dangers. The defendant denied liability, arguing the door functioned properly and the plaintiff failed to observe COVID-19 social distancing protocols.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →