Chirume |
The couple was married under the customary law union, but
never registered their marriage.
Both parties agreed to part ways but failed to reach a
settlement on the distribution of the properties.
In her decree for divorce, Ms Mutangadura had asked the
court to apply the general law given their standard of living and lifestyle
together with the properties acquired.
She argued that applying the customary law in the
distribution of their property would result in Mr Chirume being unjustly
enriched at her expense.
However, Justice Esther Muremba recently threw out Ms
Mutangadura’s claims for Number 52 Borrowdale Road to be awarded as her sole
and exclusive property, in a judgment she castigated her and her lawyer for
failing to understand the law, in their capacity as experienced lawyers. The
Judge also rejected her claim to usufruct and sole right to reside at Number 41
Harare Drive, until her remarriage or death whichever occurs first.
The parties failed to hammer a settlement at the pre-trial
conference resulting in the matter being referred to trial. At trial the judge
was called upon to determine what was Ms Mutangadura’s cause of action on both
outstanding issues and whether the defendant is entitled to a 50 percent share
of the immovable property, she was claiming. The court also wanted to decide on
whether Ms Mutangadura advanced US$177 588 loan to Mr Chirume and on what
terms. In her ruling, Justice Muremba noted that Ms Mutangadura was seeking
dissolution of the union by High Court, which she said was wrong, at law.
“A customary law union can only be dissolved under the
customary law either by giving the wife a ‘gupuro’ (a token of rejection).
The judge went on to attack Ms Mutangadura and her lawyer
for their approach to the case in dire ignorance of the law.
“What is surprising is that the plaintiff (Ms Mutangadura)
does not seek the dissolution of the union despite having indicated in her
declaration that she was seeking dissolution of the union,” said Justice
Muremba.
Ms Mutangadura based her claims on a purported marriage and
wanted distribution of property done in terms of the divorce law of this
country which is essentially in terms of the Matrimonial Causes Act.
One of the properties, Ms Mutangadura laid claim, Number 41
Harare Drive, Borrowdale, was acquired by Mr Chirume and his late wife in 1998,
well before he met the former in 2011.
The court also found that the feuding couple had joint
ownership of Number 52 Borrowdale Road in equal shares. Justice Muremba said
that other than Ms Mutangadura’s failure to state the facts which constituted
unjust enrichment in her declaration, she stated false facts.
“It remains a mystery why the plaintiff made all these
falsehoods in her declaration when she knew the truth of what happened and that
it would come out at trial. The plaintiff being a legal practitioner herself is
to blame for the false averments in her declaration.”
The judge said she did not understand why Ms Mutangadura
did not read around the law relating to marriages, divorce, matrimonial
property rights, distribution of property following dissolution of marriages
and maintenance of spouses. Her claim for the loan advanced to Mr Chirume
failed after the court found that the former ZSE chief executive settled his
debt. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment