VICE President Kembo
Mohadi has lost a bid to have his ex-wife Tambudzani ordered to pay over $400
000 to him for failing to take custody of cattle which were awarded to her when
the two officially parted ways in March last year.
“The defendant has failed, neglected or refused to remove
her herd of cattle that she was awarded in terms of the consent order from Lot
1 of Lot 10 Jompembe Farm, Beitbridge despite several demands to do so from the
plaintiff,” Mohadi had argued.
However, Tambudzani had excepted to the application, which
the High Court upheld.
“Whereupon, after reading documents filed of record and
hearing counsel, it is ordered that: the exception is upheld and the
plaintiff’s claim be and is hereby dismissed with costs,” High Court judge
Jacob Manzunzu ruled.
In the application,
Mohadi claimed that he was incurring several costs on his own relating to the
welfare of Tambudzani’s share of cattle. He said they should equally share the amount with his
ex-wife.
“The defendant’s share of expenses at the date of the
summons shall be $438 300, which shall increase on a monthly basis to the date
of this order and eventually to the date of settlement of the expenses
calculated at the rate of 30 percent of the amount outstanding at the time of
filing these summons,” he said.
Mohadi had demanded
an order directing the sheriff of the High Court of Zimbabwe to be authorised
to attach and sell the cattle in order to settle the expenses he incurred.
“The plaintiff shall be allowed to attach some of the
defendant’s assets if the total herd of cattle for the defendant fails to
satisfy the plaintiff’s claim,” he said.
However, Tambudzani had excepted to the claim, arguing that
Mohadi’s request was bad at law, as it failed to disclose a cause of action.
“The averments made do not sustain any identifiable and
recognisable cause of action. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, does
not comply with the provisions of Order 3 Rule 11 (c) of this court’s rules.
“The declaration does not contain true concise statement of
the nature, extent and grounds of the cause of action and of relief or remedies
sought in the action.
“The plaintiff’s declaration is vague and embarrassing in
that: it is not sufficiently clear whether the plaintiff’s claim is based in
contract or in delict.
“The plaintiff has only jumped to provide figures which he
purports should be remitted to him by the defendant but has not averred any of
the elements required to succeed in a claim either in delict or contract,” she
argued. Daily News
0 comments:
Post a Comment