When the parties got into the customary law union in 1967 the defendant had just left school after attaining a Junior Certificate level of education. The plaintiff was then employed as an Extension Officer by Connex.
During the subsistence of the marriage he rose in status and was able to first buy a house in Kambuzuma, then Greendale, and, later, Christon Bank. He eventually bought Wonder Valley Farm, the major property in dispute in this case.
The defendant was, in the early stages of the marriage, a house wife. With the assistance of the plaintiff, she studied and passed 'O' levels, trained as a bookkeeper/secretary and driver. She worked during the period 1980–1986. Her earnings, compared to the plaintiff's, were insignificant. The plaintiff was generous as he did not make demands on her earnings. He allowed her to use her salary as she pleased. She said she used all her earnings in the home. The plaintiff conceded that she would buy bread and milk and give children pocket money.
The plaintiff initially moved to Wonder Valley Farm on his own leaving his family in rented accommodation in Marlborough, Harare. He said it was because his wife was against the acquisition of the farm. She said it was because the children had to wind up their schooling at the schools they were attending before being moved to boarding schools then she would join her husband at the farm. She eventually left employment and joined him at Wonder Valley Farm in 1987.
They stayed together at Wonder Valley Farm from 1987 till October 2002 when the plaintiff sent his wife to their eldest daughter for counselling. He subsequently sent all her personal belongings to her parents indicating that he no longer loved her.
The plaintiff has now issued summons seeking the following orders:-
(a) A decree of divorce.
(b) An order that the matrimonial property be divided between the parties in terms of paragraphs 9 and 12.
(c) An order that the defendant be awarded maintenance in terms of paragraph 14.
(d) Each party bears their own costs….,.
In reconvention, the defendant seeks the following orders:-
(a) A decree of divorce.
(b) Maintenance for herself in the sum of $2,000,000= per month until she dies or remarries.
(c) 50% of the value of Wonder Valley Farm.
(d) 50% of the Domboshawa house.
(e) 25% of the assets of the farm.
(f) 50% of the value of the movable assets in her annexure B.
(g) That the movables be shared as suggested by the plaintiff.
(h) That the plaintiff pays costs of suit.
At the pre-trial conference, the following issues were agreed -
(1) Whether the breakdown of the marriage relationship was at the instance of the defendant or the plaintiff.
(2) Whether the properties listed by the parties were acquired during the subsistence of the marriage as alleged or at all.
(3) Whether the property proven to have been acquired during the subsistence of the marriage should be shared as proposed by the plaintiff or as proposed by the defendant.
(4) Whether the defendant is entitled to maintenance from the plaintiff. If so, the rate thereof….,.
Though the couple started from humble beginnings, they ended up as prosperous farmers and owners of a farm, a company which runs the farm, and various farm and household movable assets. Their standard of living, and the involvement of a company, justified the hearing of their case by this court in spite of their having been married in terms of customary law
I must, at the outset, say, from the evidence led this seems to have been a happy marriage which remained so for 35 years. Four children were born to the marriage, two boys and two girls. The children were educated at expensive multi-racial schools and the girls have acquired high qualifications. The boys, too, have achieved success in life. All the children are now adults. The girls are now married. The elder one lives in Harare. The younger one lives in Germany. The boys are twins. One is in the United Kingdom. The other is in Harare and is currently staying with the defendant in Vainona. He got married in 2002, at the time the parents' marriage had landed on marital rocks. His wedding seems to have been the final breaking point after the marriage had been severely tested by the parents' disagreement on when to go and see their grandchild born to their younger daughter living in Germany.
The Irretrievable Breakdown of the Marriage
The parties blamed each other for the breakdown of the marriage.
According to the plaintiff, it was because the defendant went to Germany without his authority, and, thereafter. she influenced Ronald to go ahead with his wedding with or without his blessing.
Evidence led reveals that the parties should have gone to Germany together. They disagreed on when they should have gone. The plaintiff said they should have gone after harvesting. The defendant agrees that that was the issue they disagreed on. She then opted to go alone. When she returned, they did not talk to each other. The tension in the home resulted in the plaintiff calling a meeting at which the family discussed Ronald's wedding. He asked Ronald to postpone the wedding. The defendant objected and told Ronald to go ahead with the wedding with or without the plaintiff's involvement. The plaintiff did not attend his son's wedding as a result. He only sent him his wedding gift of $1,000,000=.
The plaintiff, thereafter, sent the defendant to their eldest daughter for counselling. She did not come back and that marked the end of a marriage of 35 years.
The defendant, in evidence, said the plaintiff's lack of love for the children and his infidelity caused the breakdown of the marriage. She mentioned his not being in a hurry to go and see their daughter and grandchild in Germany and ordering the postponement of Ronald's wedding as examples. She mentioned his being in love with other women.
The plaintiff gave his evidence well. He struck me as a firm man who brooks no nonsense. I have no doubt that his version is the truthful one as to what caused the breakdown of the marriage. His evidence is supported by the defendant's on the events leading to her being sent to their daughter for counselling.
While the plaintiff's reaction to the defendant's apparent challenge on the two issues involving the children may not depict him as a caring and loving father, the manner in which he brought up his children certainly proves he is a loving and responsible father.
The issue is simply what caused the breakdown of the marriage?
In my view, though the defendant had suspicions that the plaintiff was not being faithful to her, that certainly played no part in the breakdown of the marriage. It is common cause that they had both gone for AIDS tests and they were found to be negative. They continued to happily live together as husband and wife until the issue of the Germany visit arose.
As already indicated, trouble started on the disagreement over the visit to Germany to see their younger daughter and a grandchild and Ronald's wedding was the final breaking point.
It seems to me both were strong-headed and none was prepared to defer to the other.
As the plaintiff's reasons for the breakdown of the marriage have been confirmed by the defendant's evidence, he will be granted the divorce he seeks….,.
In the result it is ordered as follows:-
1. That a decree of divorce be and is hereby granted in terms of the plaintiff's claim.
