Litigants and Litigators: Women HRDs 13 provisions of the Customary Marriages Act that allows for marriage of girls who have reached the age of 16. The application was founded on the claim that a right to found a family at 18 years of age, in terms of section 78(1) of the new Constitution, amounts to a minimum age for marriage. This matter was argued before the full Constitutional Court bench on 14 January 2015 and judgment is currently pending.   Reproductive self determination: Mapingure v Min of Home Affairs & Ors19 is a case in which judgment was delivered on 25 March 2014. Mildred Mapingure was a victim of sexual violence who had been raped by robbers at her home. She had immediately lodged a report with the police and requested that she be taken to a doctor to be given medication to prevent pregnancy and any sexually transmitted infection. Later that day she was taken to hospital and attended to by a doctor. She repeated her request, but was only treated for her injured knee. The doctor could only administer preventive treatment for unwanted pregnancy in the presence of a police officer and that medication had to be administered within 72 hours of sexual intercourse. Mapingure failed to get the police officer dealing with her case in time and three days elapsed before she secured the presence of a police officer. A month after the rape, she was found to be pregnant and wanted to terminate the pregnancy. She was referred to the public prosecutor, who advised her to wait until the rape trial was completed. After four months, acting on the direction of the police, she returned to the prosecutor who advised that she required a pregnancy termination order but the magistrate said this could only be issued after the trial was complete. After six months a certificate was eventually granted, but the hospital matron felt that it was no longer safe to carry out the procedure and declined to do so, so Mapingure gave birth to her child. The applicant brought an action against the Ministers of Home Affairs, Health and Justice for damages for physical and mental pain, anguish and stress suffered and for maintenance for the child until the child turned 18. The basis of the claim was that the employees of the three Ministries concerned were negligent in their failure to prevent the pregnancy or to expedite its termination. The particulars of negligence were itemised. Her claim was dismissed. She appealed and wanted the court to determine whether or not the government employees were negligent in the manner in which they dealt with her predicament, whether she had suffered any actionable harm as a result of such negligence and, if so, whether the respondents were liable to the appellant in damages for pain and suffering and for the maintenance of her child. The court found that with the claim for damages for pain and suffering and maintenance she was entitled to proven general damages arising from the failure to prevent her pregnancy. However, because the responsibility for taking steps to terminate her pregnancy fell squarely upon the appellant’s shoulders, and the capacity to do so also lay within her hands, the respondents could not be called to account for any subsequent pain and suffering endured by the appellant, whether arising from her continued pregnancy or the delivery of her child or the period thereafter. The appellant’s claim for damages must be limited to the period between the date of her rape and the date of confirmation of her pregnancy. The matter was remitted to the trial court for assessment of the damages to which the appellant was entitled. 19 Supreme Court unreported case 22/14.