REDRESS/AMANI delicts of its employees.154 The principles of vicarious liability will apply, unless the employee is adjudged to have been “ on a frolic of his own”at the time when the harm was inflicted, and had deviated so far from his job that he could no longer be said to have been going about his employer’s affairs. Thus, where a State employee such as a soldier or a policeman is on duty and carrying out tasks of maintaining law and order or investigating an alleged offence, then acts of illtreatment and torture will fall within the scope of his employment for the purposes of civil vicarious liability. A legal action commences with the torture survivor (or the dependents of a deceased victim) issuing a summons with a declaration, setting out the particulars of claim and quantum of damages sought. This is served by a court official on the perpetrator and/or the responsible agency. Depending on the amount of the claim, these papers can be issued out of the Magistrates Court and served by the messenger of court, or out of the High Court and served by the deputy-sheriff. As the Magistrates Court has limited jurisdiction, any substantial claim would be made in the High Court which has unlimited civil jurisdiction. The Rules of the High Court specify the ministers and other officials on whom the papers have to be served, depending on the State agency concerned, and also when service has to be made on the office of the Attorney General. These Rules have to be read in conjunction with the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14] which further specifies the inclusion of details of the identity of the individual State employees where known. Furthermore, in certain instances and before a summons is served, the plaintiff has to give notice to the State of his intention to bring the action. 155 After service, the defendants are required to enter an appearance to defend or else default judgment can be granted, although the plaintiff will still have to lead evidence of the damages claimed. After an appearance to defend is entered, the defendant is required to serve an answer to the claim, and the plaintiff may reply. Normally that will close the pleadings, and issue will be joined for trial with the parties disclosing any relevant documents, 156 which would include medical records and photographs. Before the trial itself, a pretrial conference is held at which the parties must provide each other with a list of witnesses they intend to call, and a summary of evidence, but not detailed affidavits. Various statutes 157 and regulations as well as the common law govern pre-trial and trial proceedings. The proceedings are adversarial, and the general rule is that the onus on proving any allegation is on the party making it. The overall onus is on the plaintiff to prove his case (including the amount of money claimed as damages) on a balance of probabilities, a lesser standard than in criminal trials. One means of obtaining evidence is an ‘Anton Pillar’ order procedure.158 A criminal conviction of 154 Section 2. For a general discussion of the law in Zimbabwe see Vicarious Liability and Course of Employment, Geoff Feltoe, The Zimbabwe Law Review, Volume 6, 1988, pp. 169-175. 155 See for example Section 70 of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10], as read with Section 6 of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14]. 156 This stage is known as ‘discovery’. See also below footnote 152 and Anton Pillar orders. 157 The High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] and the Rules, and the Civil Evidence Act [Chapter 8:01]. See also the Magistrates Court Act [Chapter 7:10] and Rules for civil trials in the inferior courts. 158 See on the recognition of Anton Pillar orders in Zimbabwe, Cooper v Leslie & Ors HH-151-99, and the leading South African case of Shoba v Officer Commanding, Temporary Police Camp, Wagenndrift Dam & Anor 1995 (4) SA 1 (A). The procedure originated in recent English law and found its way to Zimbabwe via South Africa, on the basis of the growth of modern Roman-Dutch law. It is akin to a search warrant, whereby the applicant and his lawyers are authorised to enter the respondent’s premises and inspect and remove documents or other items. No prior notice is given to the respondent, and the purpose of the order is to preserve, pending litigation, evidence in the possession of the respondent. The court has a discretion as to whether to grant such an order, the requirements 33