CHEDA J: This is an appeal against the
decision of the magistrate court sitting in Bulawayo.
The parties were married to each
other under customary law and stayed together for a period of 6 years. The marriage irretrievably broke down and the
trial court “dissolved” it and thereafter distributed the shares in the immovable
property, being 7940/16 Sizinda, Bulawayo by awarding 75% to appellant and 25%
to respondent. Appellant has taken issue
with the magistrates' decision arguing that respondent did not contribute
anything toward this property. He
further argued that the court erred by awarding respondent the following
property:
(1) 1 x 4 plate stove
7x 20 litre containers
½ blankets
1 new double bed
1 black bin
Evidence presented and accepted in
the court a quo is that the parties
were married under customary law and were in that union for 6 years. At the time of the union, appellant had
already acquired a stand which stand they jointly, proceeded to develop into a
habitable house, albeit their different contributions.
The trial court distributed the
matrimonial assets as stated above.
However, appellant argued that respondent should not have been awarded
25% share in the immovable property as she did not procure quotations, look
after building materials and look after appellant's minor child. He went further and argued that she did not
make any financial contributions towards this house.
It is now trite law that a spouse's
contribution should not only be confined to tangibles, but intangibles as
well. It is now settled law in our jurisdiction that
our courts will not hesitate to lean in favour of women on the principle of
unjust enrichment, all in the spirit of law development and justice. I dealt with this principle extensively in Ntini v Masuku 2003 (1) ZLR 638(H), see
also Mtuda v Ndudzo 2000(1) ZLR 710(H);
Mashingaidze v Mashingaidze 1995 (1)
ZLR and Chapeyama v Matende and another
1999(1) ZLR 534(H).
The trial court made a correct
finding as far as the parties' contributions are concerned and as such it
cannot be faulted.
In light of the above, I see no
misdirection on the part of the court a
quo and as such its reason is well ground in our law and can not attract
interference.
Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
Cheda
J...................................................................
Kamocha
J agrees......................................................
