High Court orders property distribution in Chatiko...

High Court orders property distribution in Chatikobo marriage dissolution

Nyashadzashe Ndoro

Chief Reporter

The High Court of Zimbabwe has granted a divorce and sharing of properties to Audrey Sibusiswe Chatikobo (nee Mangezi) and Michael Andrew Chatikobo, bringing an end to their nearly three-decade-long marriage.

Justice Neville Wamambo, in his judgment, noted that the parties had been separated for over five years and had lost love and affection for each other. “I find in the circumstances that a decree of divorce should be granted,” he said.

The couple’s marriage, which was solemnised on September 3, 1994, under the Marriage Act [Chapter 37] (now [Chapter 5:17]), had produced two children, now both majors. The parties had agreed on the divorce, but the dispute centred on the distribution of matrimonial assets.

The court considered various factors, including the income-earning capacity, assets, and financial resources of each spouse, as well as their financial needs, obligations, and responsibilities.

The standard of living of the family, the age and physical and mental condition of each spouse, and the direct and indirect contributions made by each spouse to the family were also taken into account.

Justice Wamambo noted that the plaintiff, Audrey Chatikobo, had been employed by a reputable company and was still employed, while the defendant, Michael Chatikobo, had sold the Alpha House flat and had been awarded the Quinnington property, which he had inherited from his father.

The court heard that the parties had acquired two immovable properties during their marriage: the Quinnington property, valued at US$350 000 - US$450 000, and the Newlands flat, valued at US$180 000 - US$200 000.

In her testimony, Audrey Chatikobo proposed that she be awarded the Newlands flat, which she had helped purchase with mortgage finance and proceeds from the sale of a stand. She also proposed that she retain the furniture at the Newlands flat and the Hyundai Creta motor vehicle, while the defendant retains the furniture at the Quinnington property and the other motor vehicles.

Michael Chatikobo, on the other hand, sought to be awarded 50% of the Newlands property, which he claimed was acquired together as a married couple.

Justice Wamambo, in his judgment, noted that the parties had agreed on the distribution of household property and motor vehicles, but disputed the distribution of the two immovable properties. She found that the plaintiff had made significant contributions to the family, including indirect contributions as a mother and wife, and that the defendant had made a higher financial contribution towards the construction of the Quinnington property.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be awarded the Newlands flat, while the defendant be awarded the Quinnington property. The parties were also ordered to retain the household goods and effects contained in each property.

The defendant was ordered to sign the relevant documents for the transfer of his shares in the Newlands flat to the plaintiff’s name within one month of the judgment.

The court also ordered that each party bears their own costs.

Justice Wamambo noted in his judgment that the parties needed a clean break and that each should continue their separate lives.

“I find that the plaintiff should be awarded the Newlands flat, while the defendant should be awarded the Quinnington property,” he said.