GWAUNZA JA: This
is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court handed down on 11 April
2013, in which a decree of divorce as well as certain ancillary relief was
granted.
The appellant raised two (2) grounds of appeal;
(i)
that the court a quo erred in dismissing her claim to maintenance in
the reduced sum of $150.00 per month, and
(ii)
that the court erred in failing to award her a ½ (half) share in the matrimonial
home, Stand No. 324/8 Mbizo Township, Kwekwe.
It is apparent from the record that the appellant, in
her counter claim, did not claim a ½ (half) share in Stand No. 324/8, Mbizo
Township. She claimed instead, the sum of $2000.00 representing the improvements
that she made to the house in question and was duly awarded that sum by the
court a quo. Accordingly that issue, not have been raised or
considered in the court a quo, is not properly before us.
The sole issue to be determined therefore is that of
maintenance. The appellant argues that the respondent is obliged to maintain
her after divorce, on the basis of the marriage vows that he made and also
because, due to a failed pregnancy that resulted in an operation, she was no
longer able to support herself.
In considering the issue of maintenance, we found the
following passage, taken from the head note in the case of Chiomba v
Chiomba 1992 (2) ZLR 197 (S) to be quite instructive as well as apposite
given the circumstances of this case;
“Marriage can no longer
be seen as providing a woman a bread ticket for life. A marriage
certificate is not a guarantee of maintenance after the marriage has been
dissolved.
Young women who worked before
marriage and are able to work and support themselves after divorce will not be
awarded maintenance if they have no young children.”
The starting point in casu is that the court
a quo, having heard the parties, found that the appellant was well
able to look after herself as demonstrated by the fact that she looked after
the matrimonial home and the plaintiff's children from 2009, following the
respondent's departure from the matrimonial home. The court found that
she was a cross border trader, a fact that was confirmed by her friend Nomatter
Hodzi whose evidence was to the effect that they had been going together to
Botswana from 2003 to 2011 for cross border trading purposes. The court
also took into account the appellant's evidence that the respondent was not
permanently employed.
We are satisfied that, in arriving at its decision on
the issue of maintenance, the court took into account all relevant
considerations. No misdirection has been alleged nor is any apparent on
the record. In addition, this Court does not find that there was any improper
exercise of the court's discretion in arriving at its conclusion.
It is therefore our unanimous view that the appeal
has no merit and ought to be dismissed.
As regards costs, we are of the view that in the
circumstances, no order as to costs should be made against the appellant.
Accordingly, it is ordered as follows;
The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to
costs.
ZIYAMBI JA: I
agree
GUVAVA
JA: I
agree
Matsikidze & Mucheche,
respondents' legal practitioners
