8
HH 530-23
HC 2293/20
RUMBIDZAYI GUMBO (Nee GADHULA)
versus
HERBERT GUMBO
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MAXWELL J
HARARE, 20, 23, & 31 March; 5 April & 27 September 2023
Civil Trial
S Mpofu & S V Tendere, for the plaintiff
T G Mukwindidza, for the defendant
MAXWELL J:
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff and defendant married each other on 3 April 2013 in terms of the then Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11]. The marriage was blessed with three children, X(born 2 March 2006), Y(born 2 March 2006) and Z(born 27 May 2011). On 13 May 2020 plaintiff sued out summons for divorce and ancillary relief. She stated in her declaration that the relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down to such an extent that there is no reasonable prospect of the restoration of a normal marriage relationship between the parties. She claimed to have suffered cruelty, psychological and emotional abuse from defendant. She prayed for custody of the children with defendant having access on boarding school visitation open days, alternate half term holidays, alternate public holidays during the school term, his birthday, the first week of each school holiday and any other time subject to giving her 48 hours’ notice. She also prayed for an order that defendant pays school fees and all educational expenses until the children reach eighteen years of age or become self-supporting, whichever occurs first. Further that defendant pays maintenance for each child, pay for the day to day upkeep, housing, hygiene and living expenses of the minor children as well as buy casual clothing and linen twice a year, keep the children on his medical aid cover and timeously pay for medical needs not covered by medical aid. Plaintiff stated that during the subsistence of the marriage the parties acquired movable and immovable property. She proposed the distribution of the property and the holding of Stand Number 2035 Mt Pleasant Heights, Harare in a family trust with the parties’ three minor children as beneficiaries and the parties as trustees.
Defendant filed his notice of entry of appearance to defend. In his plea he stated that the parties were customarily married prior to the solemnization of their marriage. The customary law union was from October 2005 to 3 April 2013 when they exchanged wedding vows. He denied allegations of cruelty and abuse. He asserted that he must retain parental rights to be consulted and to decide on issues that affect the minor children. He was agreeable to plaintiff having custody but counter proposed on access. He pointed out that he is prepared to pay half the costs of the minor children’s welfare and educational needs. On educational costs he indicated that the costs must be based on the prevailing prices of Government and Mission Schools as well as State Universities, not private schools. He disputed the need to pay maintenance for the children who will be in boarding school as well as housing expense when the children are living in a house built by the parties. On the assets of the parties, he pointed out that plaintiff had left out a farm known as a Certain piece of land situate in the District of Lomagundi called Chitomborgwizi 303 measuring 66,8877 hectares purchased in April 2018 as well as ten hectare and twenty hectare plots in Sanyati acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. He proposed that he gets a 50% share in the farm and the ten hectare plot whilst plaintiff gets a 50% share in the farm and the twenty hectare plot. Defendant also pointed out that there is a pending High Court case wherein the parties stand to benefit in the event of a judgment in their favour. He proposed that any proceeds to be realized or costs incurred in that suit must be shared 55% to plaintiff and 45% to defendant. Defendant submitted that if plaintiff does not accept his proposal on the distribution of the immovable assets, then they should be shared equally between them. He indicated that there is no basis of donating property to a family trust when there is no longer a family to talk of and if plaintiff desires to create a family trust then all assets acquired during the marriage must be donated to the family trust and the parties will only have usufruct rights in respect of the said properties during their lifetime.
In her replication, plaintiff objected to the possibility of having the children shipped off to third parties and child minders during the period defendant has access to them. She insisted on defendant paying fees for private schools on the basis that all children attend private schools. She pointed out that the lifestyle of the children should not be affected by the parties’ divorce. She proposed that defendant pays for the living expenses and purchases specified groceries in place of paying a monetary sum as maintenance. She stated that the farm in Chitomborgwizi is not matrimonial property as it is in a family trust. She disputed that the parties own the twenty hectare plot and proposed that defendant gets the ten hectare plot whilst she gets the Mount Pleasant stand which she intended to put in a family trust.
Joint Pre-Trial Conference
A Joint Pre-Trial Conference was held. The parties agreed on the following issues.
The marriage between the parties shall be dissolved.
Custody of the minor children shall be vested in the Plaintiff. The minor children are;
Xborn 2 March 2006;
Yborn 2 March 2006; and
Zborn 27 May 2011.
Plaintiff shall keep all the children’s passports and she shall make foreign travel decisions and medical related decisions in consultation with the defendant. Defendant in consultation with plaintiff shall have access to the children’s passports if he wishes to travel with the children during his access period and during the school holidays as defined herein.
Plaintiff and defendant will not introduce new religious beliefs to the minor children during and after the divorce proceedings. The children are to be allowed to practice their Adventist beliefs and way of life when they are with either party.
The defendant shall be granted access to the minor children on the following terms;
First half of the school holidays, where such cannot be attained, every first half of the holiday; (it’s not clear what the agreement was where it is not possible to have them the first half of the holiday.)
Defendant shall be picking up the children from school on closing days and dropping them off at plaintiff’s place of residence once the first of the school holiday ends;
On defendant’s birthdays;
On the minor children’s alternate birthdays if they do not fall within the school term days;
Defendant shall have access on the day scholar minor child (Z) every alternate weekend on Saturday from 09.00 a.m. to Sunday at 1800 hours;
Defendant shall have access at any other time that both parties may find mutually convenient upon prior consultation and agreement with each other; and
Defendant shall enjoy access at his own cost.
Both defendant and plaintiff shall contribute towards maintenance of the minor children as follows;
By paying for half of the minor children’s educational expenses inter-alia;
School fees, school and sports uniforms
Sports equipment and/or kit, and extra-curricular activities,
Grooming requirements
All other school related costs until the children become self-sufficient and/or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Defendant and plaintiff to keep the minor children on their medical aid cover until they become self-sufficient or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first. Both parties will share equally costs for the children’s medical needs not covered by the medical aid until they become self-sufficient or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Defendant shall avail medical aid cards for the minor children to the plaintiff for her keeping.
Defendant and plaintiff will buy;
The children’s casual clothing, twice a year until the children become self-sufficient and/or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Formal clothing, twice a year until the children become self-sufficient or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Linen twice a year until the children become self-sufficient and/or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Defendant and plaintiff shall alternate the buying of furniture in the form of beds after every f years. Defendant shall take the first turn in 2023, until the children become self- sufficient and/or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Defendant and plaintiff shall each contribute 50% of the house help’s wages and transport requirements each month.
Defendant and plaintiff shall each provide for the upkeep and needs of the children for the half of the holidays when they are in their respective care.
In the event that either party fails to take the children into their care for their half of the school days, the said party will provide for the upkeep of the children at the cost of US$100.00 per child.
The assets of the parties will be distributed in the following manner;
-
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
Mazda 626, vehicle licence number ACG 5072
A herd of cattle
Toyota Fortuner, vehicle licence number ADQ 7264
Nissan Hardbody, vehicle licence number ACU 2992
Remainder of household goods and effects
55% of proceeds from Mutorashanga case Gumbo v Chiwazo
45% of proceeds from Mutorashanga case Gumbo v Chiwazo
Stand No. 1520 Marimba Park, Mufakose
Stand No. 4776 Granary, Snake Park Harare.
IVECO bus vehicle registration number ADZ 4794 shall be evaluated by the plaintiff and the proceeds from the sale of the bus shall be shared accordingly in terms of the company documents.
The evaluation report fees will be paid for by the business.
The parties did not agree on the distribution of the Mt Pleasant and Crowhill Views immovable properties as well as the amount of maintenance to be paid per month. It was further agreed to refer these issues to trial.
The Trial
Plaintiff testified first. Her evidence was that she married defendant customarily in 2005 and in 2013 they registered their marriage. The marriage certificate was produced as an exhibit. She is seeking divorce because of the abuse she suffered and the adultery by the defendant. She resides in Crowhill but is not aware of where defendant is residing. She confirmed the agreement reached at the Pre-Trial Conference regarding custody of the children, access and the sharing of expenses. She indicated that the maintenance for three children should be one thousand six hundred dollars (US$1 600) per month so defendant should contribute eight hundred dollars (US$ 800). She indicated that the disagreement is on the school to be attended by the minor children. One of the twins has a medical condition which resulted in her having to move the children to a nearby private school. The fees for the three children is approximately seven thousand dollars (US$7 000) per term so defendant should contribute (three thousand five hundred dollars (US$3 500). Defendant has school fees and other allowances from his workplace. In addition he has a herd of cattle and a transport business. Even though during the Pre-Trial Conference the parties had agreed that the Iveco bus used in the transport business be sold, she was proposing that it be awarded to the defendant. Defendant also has income from the farming project in Banket. After separation she was diagnosed with an immune related illness which requires regular visits to a doctor and a special diet. Defendant is aware of her condition and needs as he received an email from her doctor
The Crowhill property is in both parties’ names. It was purchased in 2010 but they moved in in 2014. The agreement was for 50-50 contribution but defendant was not able to do so. He contributed by purchasing building materials, roofing sheets and part of the labour costs. She put the value of his contribution between twenty five thousand dollars ($25000) and thirty thousand dollars ($30 000) in a house valued at over eighty thousand dollars ($80 000). She claimed full ownership of the property on the basis that she was the major contributor to acquisition and construction whilst at the same time taking care of the family and meeting the children’s educational expenses on her own.
The Mount Pleasant property was purchased in 2016. The total cost was $42 300. She contributed twenty thousand three hundred dollars ($20 300) and defendant contributed twenty two thousand dollars ($22 000). She however requested for a 70% share on the basis that during its acquisition defendant was not contributing to the family expenses.
Defendant’s testimony was as follows, they married in 2005 and registered the union in 2013. Apart from his salary he has no other source of income. There were five cattle at the time plaintiff filed for divorce, three heifers, one bull and one steer. Three calves were added in 2021 and another three in 2022. Unfortunately at the beginning of 2023 six died. Currently there are five calves, 2 steers and 3 heifers. He is not aware of where the IVECO bus is. It was parked at the matrimonial home when he left in July 2020. He is currently staying in a cabin at the Mount Pleasant property. In 2018 he ventured into farming but was not successful. He denied being cruel to the plaintiff and having any adulterous affair. He stated that he has provided everything expected of a father. He disputed that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and stated that he still loved the plaintiff but cannot force her to return the love. He confirmed the agreement in the Pre-Trial Conference minute and pointed out that he has no capacity to pay the amount of maintenance requested by plaintiff. He proposed to pay maintenance of four hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($450). Prior to the children being enrolled at a private school without being consulted, their fees were covered by the school fees allowance paid by his employer. The private school were they were enrolled does not accept payment in RTGS which is the currency of his remuneration. He paid fees up to second term of 2016 in which year plaintiff started working and getting a school fees allowance. When plaintiff took over the payment of fees, he assumed the responsibility of the school runs as well as transporting plaintiff to and from work. He ferried her until she filed for divorce. He would buy clothes twice annually for plaintiff and the children from Edgars. In 2016 the bus was acquired and it plied the Harare to Mount Darwin route. The transport business yielded $200 per day. The proceeds would be used to purchase food and building material for the Crowhill property.
He disputed that plaintiff contributed $1 000 for food. He stated that she was looking after her extended family, paying fees for T, S and V, as well as buying groceries for her parents every month. According to him the Crowhill property should be shared equally. He stated that for about two years after the property was acquired as a vacant stand, plaintiff was not contributing anything. She started contributing after changing the company she was working for. The parties opened an investment account in plaintiff’s name as they did not have a marriage certificate at the relevant time. He was making deposits in the investment account so the amounts therefrom are not solely from Plaintiff. He deposited half of the amount in the investment account. During construction of the Crowhill property he would ferry building material from town to the property. In his view, at the time he moved out the property was valued at a hundred thousand dollars ($100 000). He paid for the registration of title.
The Mount Pleasant property has no title deeds but he paid transfer fees. He disputed receiving three thousand dollars ($3 000) from plaintiff towards transfer fees. He estimated the value of the Mount Pleasant property to be around sixty thousand dollars ($60 000) and his contribution at 57%. He disputed that the property was acquired for the children. He indicated that he would prefer that his children grow up in Mount Pleasant and accepted that plaintiff can develop the stand and stay there with the children.
Under cross examination he indicated that his contribution towards the construction of the Crowhill property was less than that of the plaintiff. He also conceded that his contribution into the investment account was less than half of the amount invested therein.
The Law
The law relating to the sharing of the assets of the spouses is set out in s 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act [Chapter 5:13], (the Act). The assets subject to distribution are those that were acquired by the parties during the subsistence of the marriage which they consider to be belonging to the family. The Court’s power to distribute the family assets however does not extend.
“to any assets which are proved, to the satisfaction of the court, to have been acquired by a spouse, whether before or during the marriage—
(a) by way of an inheritance; or
(b) in terms of any custom and which, in accordance with such custom, are intended to be held by the spouse personally; or
(c) in any manner and which have particular sentimental value to the spouse concerned.”
See s 7 (3) of the Act. In subs 4 of the same section, the court is enjoined to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following—
“(a) the income-earning capacity, assets and other financial resources which each spouse
and child has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each spouse and child has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(c) the standard of living of the family, including the manner in which any child was being educated or trained or expected to be educated or trained;
(d) the age and physical and mental condition of each spouse and child;
(e) the direct or indirect contribution made by each spouse to the family, including
contributions made by looking after the home and caring for the family and any other
domestic duties;
(f) the value to either of the spouses or to any child of any benefit, including a pension or gratuity, which such spouse or child will lose as a result of the dissolution of the
marriage;
(g) the duration of the marriage;…”
The Act further directs that in distributing the assets, the court shall endeavor as far as is reasonable and practicable and, having regard to the conduct of the parties, where it is just to do so, place the spouses and child in the position they would have been in had a normal marriage relationship continued between the spouses.
Analysis
The Mount Pleasant and the Crowhill Properties
The two immovable properties under consideration will be distributed in the light of the evidence led by the parties and what the law says.
Plaintiff accepted that defendant contributed more in the acquisition of the Mount Pleasant property. She paid twenty thousand three hundred dollars ($20 300) as opposed to defendant’s twenty two thousand dollars ($22 000). Defendant stated that in addition he paid the registration fees of five thousand one hundred dollars ($5 100). The total contributions were therefore 42.8% from the plaintiff and 57.2% from defendant. However, plaintiff stated that at the time of its acquisition defendant was making negligible contributions to the welfare of the family. She claimed a 100% share of this property. Defendant pointed out that his explanation for not contributing towards the school fees, that plaintiff had school fees assistance at her workplace, and that the parties agreed that she makes the payments, was not rebutted. In any event, the period emphasized in cross-examination when defendant is alleged to have neglected paying fees is after the twins were nine years or more. Defendant was specifically referred to the years 2015 to 2019. The twins must have been in school already and defendant’s evidence that his employer paid fees for the early years of school was not disputed.
Plaintiff is claiming 100% ownership of the Crowhill property. The property has title deeds in both parties’ names. As the property is jointly owned, the starting point is that each party has a 50% share in it. In Jones Conveyancing in South Africa 4 ed p 118 it is stated that:
“Where transferees acquire in equal shares it need not be stated in the deed that they acquire ‘in equal shares’, as this fact is presumed in the absence of any statement to the contrary”.
See Takafuma v Takafuma 1994 (2) ZLR 103 and Ncube v Ncube S-6-93.
The question to be answered is whether or not there are grounds for giving away defendant’s share to the plaintiff. Plaintiff, to a large extent, has placed figures of her contribution before the court. Defendant has not been able to do so. Plaintiff has emphasized how she was solely bearing the burden of the children’s needs. She however did not dispute defendant’s allegation that for about two years after the property was acquired as a vacant stand, she was not contributing anything and that she started contributing after changing the company she was working for. The extent of the progress or lack of it in the two years was not placed before the court. Plaintiff also did not dispute that when defendant moved out of the matrimonial home she did not apprise him of what was going on in the children’s lives. The cross examination on defendant focused on communication from either the child or from the school. At no point was it stated that plaintiff had reached out to defendant. Defendant pointed out that plaintiff attempted to have him evicted from the Mount Pleasant property where he is staying in a cabin. Such was the extent of the animosity between the parties. However in Shenje v Shenje 2001 (1) ZLR 160 the point is made that the legislative intent and the objective of the courts is more weighted in favour of ensuring that the parties’ needs are met rather than that their contributions are recouped. The veracity of each party’s evidence would be telling if the trial’s end result would be recouping of contributions made by the parties. However, the issue of the parties’ needs necessitates different considerations. Accommodation is one such need which must be considered on divorce, especially where the parties jointly owned immovable property.
I have not lost sight of defendant’s submission that he would want the children to grow up in Mount Pleasant. The custodian parent is the plaintiff. It therefore follows that defendant is in a way agreeing to the Mount Pleasant property being awarded to the plaintiff. The property will be so awarded.
Section 26 (c) and (d) of the Constitution provides that the State must ensure that there is equality of rights and obligations of spouses during marriage and at its dissolution and in the event of dissolution, provision must be made for the necessary protection of spouses. Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provides that men and women of full age are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. This means there must be a fair and equitable division and distribution of property at the dissolution of marriage, unless there are special circumstances justifying a departure therefrom. I am not persuaded that any special circumstances exist to warrant an unequal distribution. It will be unfair to award both immovable properties to the plaintiff to the exclusion of the defendant. I find defendant’s claim of a 50-50 distribution reasonable. Defendant will therefore be awarded the Crowhill property. However awarding one party a developed stand whilst the other gets an undeveloped stand is not just. Of necessity therefore both stands must be valued. The difference in value must be shared equally. Defendant must therefore contribute 50% of the difference in value between the Crowhill property and the Mount Pleasant property to plaintiff, who, as a custodian parent, will have the benefit of the use of the Crowhill Property until she receives the contribution from defendant and builds at the Mount Pleasant property or until the youngest minor child attains the age of eighteen, whichever occurs last.
Maintenance
Items 6 to 13 under the Pre-Trial Conference cover most of the issues related to the maintenance of the minor children. The outstanding issue is the amount of contribution each party must make per month in monetary terms. Plaintiff testified that the children require one thousand six hundred dollars (US$1 600) which would require each party to contribute eight hundred dollars (US$ 800). She produced a list of grocery items required for Z per month. Defendant did not challenge the inclusion of any item on the list. He offered four hundred and fifty dollars (US$450) for all the minor children. Plaintiff in her closing submissions is agreeable to defendant paying five hundred and fifty dollars (US$550). At the end of the day the court in determining the quantum of maintenance to be paid by the non-custodial parent would consider the needs of the children and the means of the parties. The needs of the children have been stated by the plaintiff. Section 19 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe directs that in matters relating to children, the best interests of the children concerned are paramount. The best interests of the children in this case are to ensure that they maintain a lifestyle they are accustomed to. This is in line with the requirement to place the children in the position they would have been in had a normal marriage relationship continued between the spouses stated in the Act. In assessing the means of the parties, the Court observed that defendant was not forthcoming in relation to any extra income available to him. An attempt was made to have him declare what he gets from farming activities but he denied having any income therefrom. This was despite a number of plots being pointed out as having been used by him. He was not clear on the number of cattle he has. I am not persuaded that an extra hundred dollars ($100) on top of the amount he offered would make much of a difference to him, especially since he indicated that he sometimes disposes of his fuel coupons to supplement his income. Defendant must therefore contribute five hundred and fifty (US$550) towards the maintenance of the minor children broken down to one hundred and fifty dollars (US$150) for each of the twins and two hundred and fifty dollars (US$250) for X until each of the minor children attains the age of eighteen years or become self-supporting, whichever occurs first.
Costs
In her closing submissions plaintiff quoted the case of Guchu v Guchu HH 811/2022 in which costs on an attorney and client scale were granted. In para 9.3 of the closing submissions a request is made that the court take the considerations in the cited case into account and make the order for costs as requested. The quotation from Guchu v Guchu (supra) specifically said “in her summons, plaintiff prayed for costs on an attorney-client (sic) scale”. Defendant submitted that the cited case is distinguishable as in that case the plaintiff had claimed costs on an attorney and client scale as against the defendant in the summons and insisted on such costs after the trial. In casu the parties have always agreed that each party shall bear his or her own costs. Indeed plaintiff concluded both her declaration and replication with a prayer that “Each party to pay its own costs of suit.” During the trial, the issue of costs was not addressed. The reason for departure from what the plaintiff prayed for at the commencement of the proceedings was not placed before the court. The request that the court make the order of costs as requested must therefore be interpreted to mean the request in the pleadings, which is that each party bears its own costs. Accordingly it will be so ordered.
Disposition
It is ordered that:
By Consent
A decree of divorce be and is hereby granted;
Custody of the minor children be and is hereby awarded to the plaintiff. The minor children are:
Xborn 2 March 2006;
Yborn 2 March 2006; and
Zborn 27 May 2011.
Plaintiff shall keep all the children’s passports and she shall make foreign travel decisions and medical related decisions in consultation with the defendant. Defendant in consultation with plaintiff shall have access to the children’s passports if he wishes to travel with the children during his access period and during the school holidays as defined herein.
Plaintiff and defendant will not introduce new religious beliefs to the minor children during and after the divorce proceedings. The children are to be allowed to practice their Adventist beliefs and way of life when they are with either party.
The defendant shall be granted access to the minor children on the following terms;
First half of the school holidays, where such cannot be attained, the remainder of every first half of the holiday;
Defendant shall be picking up the children from school on closing days and dropping them off at Plaintiff’s place of residence once the first half of the school holiday ends;
On defendant’s birthdays;
On the minor children’s alternate birthdays if they do not fall within the school term days;
Defendant shall have access on the day scholar minor child (Z) every alternate weekend on Saturday from 09.00 a.m. to Sunday at 1800 hours;
Defendant shall have access at any other time that both parties may find mutually convenient upon prior consultation and agreement with each other; and
Defendant shall enjoy access at his own cost.
Both defendant and plaintiff shall contribute towards maintenance of the minor children as follows;
By paying for half of the minor children’s educational expenses inter-alia;
School fees, school and sports uniforms
Sports equipment and/or kit, and extra-curricular activities,
Grooming requirements
All other school related costs until the children become self-sufficient and/or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Defendant and plaintiff shall keep the minor children on their medical aid cover until they become self-sufficient or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first. Both parties will share equally costs for the children’s medical needs not covered by the medical aid until they become self-sufficient or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Defendant shall avail medical aid cards for the minor children to the plaintiff for her keeping.
Defendant and plaintiff will buy;
The children’s casual clothing, twice a year until the children become self-sufficient and/or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Formal clothing, twice a year until the children become self-sufficient or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Linen twice a year until the children become self-sufficient and/or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Defendant and plaintiff shall alternate the buying of furniture in the form of beds after every five years. Defendant shall take the first turn in 2023, until the children become self-sufficient and/or turn the age of majority, whichever occurs first.
Defendant and plaintiff shall each contribute 50% of the house help’s wages and transport requirements each month.
Defendant and plaintiff shall each provide for the upkeep and needs of the children for the half of the holidays when they are in their respective care.
In the event that either party fails to take the children into their care for their half of the school days, the said party will provide for the upkeep of the children at the cost of a hundred dollars (US$100) per child.
The assets of the parties will be distributed in the following manner:
-
Plaintiff
Defendant
Mazda 626, vehicle licence number ACG 5072
A herd of cattle
Toyota Fortuner, vehicle licence number ADQ 7264
Nissan Hardbody, vehicle licence number ACU 2992
Remainder of household goods and effects
45% of proceeds from Mutorashanga case Gumbo vs Chiwazo
55% of proceeds from Mutorashanga case Gumbo vs Chiwazo
Stand No 1520 Marimba Park Mufakose
Stand No. 4776 Granary, Snake Park Harare.
The IVECO bus vehicle registration number ADZ 4794 shall be evaluated by the plaintiff and the proceeds from the sale of the bus shall be shared accordingly in terms of the company documents.
The evaluation report fees will be paid for by the business.
It is further ordered that:
Defendant shall pay five hundred and fifty dollars (US$550) towards the maintenance of the minor children broken down to one hundred and fifty dollars (US$150) for each of the twins and two hundred and fifty dollars (US$250) for Z until each of the minor children attains the age of eighteen years or become self- supporting, whichever occurs first.
Plaintiff be and is hereby awarded Stand No. 2035 Mt Pleasant Heights, Harare.
Defendant be and is hereby awarded Stand No. 1581 Crowhill, Borrowdale, Harare, minus 50% of the value of the improvements thereon.
Plaintiff, who, as a custodian parent, will have the benefit of the use of the Crowhill property until the youngest minor child attains the age of eighteen or until she builds at the Mount Pleasant property whichever occurs last.
Both properties must be valued by an estate agent agreed to by the parties within thirty days of this order. In the event that the parties fail to agree on an estate agent, one will be appointed by the Registrar of the High Court from the list of registered estate agents.
Plaintiff be and is hereby awarded 50% of the difference in value between Stand No. 1581 Crowhill, Borrowdale, Harare and Stand No. 2035 Mount Pleasant Heights, Harare.
Defendant is to pay the plaintiff her 50% stated in 22 above within six months of the valuation failing which plaintiff shall have option of paying defendant the value of Stand No. 1581 Crowhill, Borrowdale, Harare within six months of defendant’s failure
In the event that the parties fail to pay each other within the stipulated time, the property will be sold to best advantage and the net proceeds distributed accordingly. The sale will be by an estate agent agreed by the parties and in the event of failure to agree on an estate agent, it will be sold by an estate agent appointed by the Registrar of the High Court from the list of registered estate agents.
Each party bears its own costs.
Messrs Munangati & Associates, plaintiff’s legal practitioners
Messrs Bere Brothers, defendant’s legal practitioners