MAWADZI v RATIDZAI HAZEL MAWADZI (NEE MASHINGAIDZE) (42 of 2025) [2025] ZWMTHC 42 (23 July 2025)

37 HCMTJ 42-25 R-HCMT 129/18 GUMISANI MAWADZI versus RATIDZAI HAZEL MAWADZI (NEE MASHINGAIDZE) HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE SIZIBA J MUTARE, 29 May, 13 & 20 June,10 & 23 July 2025 MATRIMONIAL ACTION Advocate Chinwawadzimba with Mr P. Makombe, for the plaintiff Mr P. Nyakureba with Ms S. Mungofa & Ms D. Mutungura, for the defendant SIZIBA J: This has been a highly contested and protracted matrimonial action. The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on the 18th of September 2018 praying for a decree of divorce and ancillary relief which included custody of the children and division of the assets of the spouses. The plaintiff’s summons and declaration were countered by the defendant’s elaborate plea and counterclaim which ballooned the contested issues to include spousal maintenance as well as maintenance of the children, custody of the minor children, the distribution of both movable and immovable assets. THE PLEADINGS In terms of the Joint Pre – Trial Conference Minute dated 21 October 2020 which was held in chambers before Mwayera J (as she then was), it was agreed that the issues for trial were as follows: What constitutes the assets of the parties which qualify for apportionment and distribution and / or division in terms of the Matrimonial Causes Act?What would constitute a just, fair and equitable distribution of the assets of the parties?Whether or not the Defendant is entitled to post—divorce spousal maintenance, and if so the quantum and period thereof?What constitutes a fair and reasonable quantum of maintenance for each of the minor children?Whether the Plaintiff's conduct during the marriage constitutes gross marital misconduct deserving of censure in the redistribution order and by way of a punitive order of costs?Whether the Defendant’s conduct during the marriage constitutes gross marital misconduct deserving of censure in the redistribution order and by way of a punitive order of costs?Whether Makombe and Associates should act for the Plaintiff in this action given their prior representation of both parties and their business before the institution of the divorce proceedings. The following issues were agreed upon at the Pre – Trial Conference: That the marriage has irretrievably broken down.That the Defendant shall have custody of all the three minor children.That the Plaintiff will have reasonable access to the minor children every alternate weekend and for half of each school holiday when the children are in Zimbabwe.The Plaintiff shall cater for all the educational needs of Tinotenda Mawadzi inclusive of tuition, transport, accommodation and upkeep costs up to the completion of his first degree.That the parties’ movables be distributed as per the Annexures to the Defendant’s Claim in Reconvention. The parties were married to each other on the 4th of June 1999 in the United Kingdom. They were blessed with four children namely: Tinotenda Mawadzi (born 18 December 2000)Shingai Mawadzi (born 23 March 2003)Tsitsi Mawadzi (born 17 December 2004)N Mawadzi (born 1 April 2013) The suggested distribution of the immovable property in terms of the plaintiff’s declaration was as follows: 9/10 shares of Manicaland Christian School to both parties.1/2 shares of stand 5737 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare to both parties.1/2 shares of stand 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare to both parties.1/2 shares of number 28 Capel Road Enfield, London, EN 1-4, ESP to both parties.1/2 shares of number 7247 new Bordervale, Mutare to both parties. In terms of the defendant’s Plea and Counterclaim, she suggested that she be awarded the following immovable properties namely: Stand 7248 New Bordervale, Mutare.Stand 11846 Edward Road, Florida.28 Chapel Road, Enfield, UK.Stand 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare. The defendant in her Plea and Counterclaim suggested that the plaintiff be awarded the following immovable assets namely: Stand 7247 New Bordervale, Cavalla Farm.Stand 5737 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare.Marondera Curve Farm Plot. On the 28th of November 2024, the defendant amended her counterclaim so that she could be awarded the following immovable property: Stand 7248 New Bordervale, Mutare (which she had already claimed)100% share in Manicaland Christian School.50% share of 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Feruka Road, Mutare.Stand 7247 New Bordervale, Mutare. In her Plea and Counterclaim, the defendant’s claim for her own maintenance was in the sum of US$2000 and she had also claimed a sum of US$500 in respect of the minor child. PRELIMINARY ISSUES AT THE TRIAL At the commencement of the trial, the parties confirmed that the rest of the issues were no longer contentious save for issues number 1 and 2 in the Joint Pre Trial Minute of 21 October 2020 as follows: What constitutes the assets of the parties which qualify for apportionment and distribution and / or division in terms of the Matrimonial Causes Act?What would constitute a just, fair and equitable distribution of the assets of the parties? It was also confirmed by both counsel that the parties had agreed to share 50% costs in the educational needs of all the children as and when they undertake their tertiary studies. The parties also confirmed that the distribution of the movable assets would remain as agreed in their joint pre trial minute referred to above save for the motor vehicles. They agreed that they would file a schedule for the distribution of their movable assets which would reflect the current situation. This they subsequently did and hence the movable assets shall be distributed according to the parties’ distribution list which is filed of record. THE PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE The plaintiff gave an outline of the assets of the spouses and his proposed distribution of such assets as articulated hereunder. STAND 7247 NEW BORDERVALE, MUTARE Concerning stand 7247 New Bordervale (hereinafter called stand 7247), the plaintiff told this court that that was the matrimonial home where the defendant is currently staying and when the children are around that is where they also stay. He bought the stand in 2003 and built a house thereon in 2004. The stand cost $293 000 in the moribund Zimbabwe dollar currency. It is a double story property with two bedrooms on the ground floor, a study room, kitchen, living room, dining room, laundry room, bathroom and separate toilet. Upstairs, it has 3 bedrooms, a living room, a gym, 3 bathrooms. The main bedroom has an ensuite. He moved out of this property in August 2019. The plaintiff went further to state that there is also a cottage in this matrimonial house which is being rented out to tenants by the defendant and he had no idea how much rentals are currently realised from the cottage. The cottage initially had two bedrooms but its garage has now been also converted into an apartment which is being rented out. He is currently staying at Fairbridge Park Extension, Mutare in a rented 5 bedroomed house. The plaintiff’s testimony was that he is the one who purchased the stand for the matrimonial property and also engaged a construction company to build the house at that stand. He arranged for his cousin to look after the property when the parties were still in the United Kingdom. He would send money for the building materials during the relevant time. He claimed to have contributed 80% towards this property. The defendant’s contribution according to him was that she would travel into the country with him to oversee the progress in the project. The property is registered in his names. He said that he is the one who looked for the stand and that he was directly involved in all the stages of the construction until he acquired title deeds for the property. The plaintiff told the court that when he acquired this property, he and the defendant were working at Millenium Recruitment which was a recruitment agency in the United Kingdom and both were realising a monthly salary of 1 500 British Pounds. He said that he would also do extra work to supplement his income by working as a mental health assistant nurse at a salary of 250 British Pounds a week. The plaintiff told the court that the defendant’s contribution to this property amounted to 20%. It was less than his own part. He however recognised her as the mother of his children. He wanted the parties to share the value of the property equally at 50%. He dismissed the defendant’s outright claim of 100% in this property as selfish and unreasonable since he contributed more than her to its acquisition and construction. STAND 7248 NEW BORDERVALE, MUTARE The plaintiff’s testimony was that he acquired this property in 2005. He could not remember the purchase price. It consists of a swimming pool in terms of its development. It had a gazebo that was destroyed by fire. He claimed to have contributed 100% towards its acquisition from his friend one Mr Nicholas Finch who was by then migrating to Namibia. He said that the defendant was not aware when the property was acquired as it was purchased for her as a gift when both parties were in the United Kingdom. The property was and is still registered in the defendant’s names with the City of Mutare but it has no title deed yet as he did not develop it. It is adjacent to stand 7247 such that there is one durawall surrounding both properties even though it is considered as an independent property for all other intents and purposes by the municipality of Mutare. Since this property was a gift to the defendant, the plaintiff made no claims to it. His prayer was that it should be awarded to her. STAND 5737 OF 5743 NATVEST INDUSTRIAL PARK, MUTARE The plaintiff’s testimony was that this property was jointly owned by him and the defendant in terms of the title deed. He acquired it around 2005 and 2006. It was disposed of in 2024 and the proceeds were shared equally with the defendant. STAND 5728 OF 5743 NATVEST INDUSTRIAL PARK, MUTARE This property according to the plaintiff is an industrial stand which is still remaining. It was acquired by the parties jointly in terms of financial contribution and it is registered in their joint names under its title deed. It was acquired in 2006. He accepted the defendant’s proposed 50% share to both parties at divorce. HOUSE NUMBER 28 CHAPEL ROAD, LONDON The plaintiff’s testimony was that this property was acquired in 2007 through a mortgage loan that was jointly applied for by both parties which was 212 000 British Pounds. The property is registered under their joint names. The balance remaining in the mortgage loan is now around 45 000 British Pounds. The plaintiff’s evidence was that this property should be shared equally at 50% for each party. According to an Evaluation Report tendered by the plaintiff, this property is now valued at 635 000 British Pounds. The house is rented out to tenants and the proceeds thereof are channelled towards servicing of the mortgage loan. This property is still under the threat of being reclaimed by the bank if the parties default payment of the mortgage loan. The plaintiff claims that at some point when the defendant had travelled to London, she diverted the rentals and that the house was nearly repossessed if it was not for his swift action in engaging some lawyers in London to rescue it. THE MANICALAND CHRISTIAN SCHOOL BUSINESS The school is located at stand number 11846 Edward Road, Florida, Mutare and it has a lease agreement with the City of Mutare. It started operating in 2015 as a registered school according to the plaintiff. His testimony was that this school was his brain child. He claimed to have done everything from looking for the land, applying for its registration, applying for the permission to build. He also testified to having applied for the lease with the City of Mutare, designed the logo for the school, the enrolment forms for the learners, designed recruitment forms for the staff and even made the business proposal for the project. He did not recall any role that the defendant had played in the school business apart from joining him in working in the school administration when the school became operational. Concerning the funding of the school project, the plaintiff testified that he sold a number of properties and also borrowed some money from financial institutions. Another loan was in the sum of US$37 000 which he used to buy roofing tiles. He sold a house in Greendale, Harare which was registered in his name. He also sold another house in Avondale, Harare which was jointly owned with the defendant. He also sold a stand which was registered in his own names in Nyakamete Industrial Park, Mutare. The plaintiff’s further testimony was that during the construction of the school, he did not hire a construction company but he used to hire individual workers and he also used the services of the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services. He was at the site. There were times when they worked day and night so as to meet the deadline of opening the school by January 2015. The plaintiff also testified that prior to the construction of the school, he engaged a company to do an Environmental Impact Assessment. There was a time when the proposal to build the school was rejected. He had to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister. He arranged to source water for construction from the neighbours when the school had no water. By then, the defendant was in the United Kingdom. The school now offers both primary and secondary education. He is fully involved in the school. He goes there almost daily to open for the workers even on Saturdays before going to church. His further testimony was that he represents the school in the National Employment Council for the private schools. He has been involved in every dispute with employees even to the extent of attending at the Labour Court. He testified that the defendant’s role in the formation of the school was just general support. When the school became operational, she has been the school’s administrator doing accounting. The plaintiff does recruitment and training of staff. He did the mission statement, the values and he is the Responsible Authority with the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education. The school has a logo of a guinea fowl which is his totem. He testified that currently he is the Director of the school and Chairperson of the School Board while the defendant is the Vice Chairperson. The School has a Constitution. The plaintiff estimated that the school project had been constructed at the cost of US$450 000 to US$500 000. He estimated the value of the school buildings at US$500 000. He denied the defendant’s allegation that the school was her brainchild. He said that the defendant did not do any write up or fill any form in the formation of the school. He testified that the school currently owes US$2000 to ZIMRA in Pay As You Earn taxes. It also owes about the same figure in rates at the City of Mutare. The school lease is for 99 years and of such, 80 years is remaining. The school is owing as highlighted above due to the broken marriage whereby there are disagreements on how to do things. He dismissed the defendant’s 100% claim to the school business and insisted that he would offer her a 10% share of its value. THE CAVALLA FARM The plaintiff testified that this farm belongs to the State and that he was offered the same in terms of an offer letter by the Ministry of Lands dated 5 June 2003. It is not private property. He told the court that the boundaries for this farm have been changed four times due to further subdivisions. He said that it was not possible for him to be awarded this farm as it was not his asset. This is why he had excluded it from being part of the assets that could be shared or distributed in his pleadings. There was no meaningful activity at the farm for now due to the squabbles between the parties which were a built up to the divorce matter. The workers were utilising the farm to produce their own food for now. He denied that there was some serious enterprise going on there. He said that there was someone who had requested to keep his cattle there and some eight goats. TISU ANHU ACHO COMPANY The plaintiff testified that this company was incorporated around 2006. He and the defendant were the shareholders. Around 2013, the company was owing some moneys from a Labour case which they had lost and the creditors were bent upon attaching their personal assets and that is when they decided to sell the remaining motor vehicles so as to minimise loss. This was a haulage truck business. The company has not been operational for some years. He attributed the collapse of the business to the quarrels in their marriage whereby he alleged that the defendant would tell the customers not to hire the trucks as she was not benefiting from the company. The workers left and all the trucks were sold. He said the company simply does not exist. He cannot be awarded same. The defendant can have it 100% if she wants it. CONCLUSION OF PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN CHIEF The plaintiff concluded his evidence in chief by telling the court that his suggested distribution of the matrimonial assets was fair and reasonable. He also told the court that the defendant holds a degree in Computers and Business Studies from Middlessex University. On his part, he holds a Professional Diploma in Human Resources Management, a Post Graduate Diploma in Human Resources Management and a Multi - Disciplinary Masters Degree in Human Resources Management, all from Middlessex University. THE PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER TESTIMONY UNDER CROSS EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL The plaintiff was subjected to vigorous, intense and protracted cross examination by defendant’s counsel. What came out from the plaintiff’s concessions under cross examination was that he had overstated his own role and contribution in so far as the acquisition and development of the assets of the parties was concerned. The role and contribution made by the defendant had been downplayed. This is not to say that the plaintiff had not played a major role and contributed immensely to the assets of the spouses. Notwithstanding this, however, the plaintiff still struck me as an honest witness who was quick to concede facts which were not favourable to his interests. I did not also discern an intention on his part to make life difficult for the defendant and his children due to the unfortunate break down of the marital union. The plaintiff agreed that the defendant migrated to the United Kingdom at the age of 5 years and lived there with her parents. She did her degree in Computer Science and Business Studies in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff agreed also that he arrived in the United Kingdom in the early nineties. He agreed that at the time that they got married in 1999, the defendant was working at Millenium Nursing Care with her father. He denied that she was employed as a Manager even though their Marriage Certificate reflected that she was by then a Business Manager. The Marriage Certificate reflected that the plaintiff himself was by then a student. The plaintiff told the court that Millenium Nursing Care, which was her father in law’s business closed down due to change of operational requirements owing to the British government’s resolve to join the European Union. They then took over and opened a new business called Millenium Recruitment where they worked both as Directors with defendant. The defendant’s father gave plaintiff a loan of 10 000 British Pounds to finance the new business. The plaintiff returned this money thereafter by buying the defendant’s father a house in Borrowdale, Harare. The plaintiff was not willing to accept that he had inherited the business from his father in law. He insisted that the old business had closed up and he started a new business altogether. He accepted that he benefited by taking over the contracts of the old business. He insisted that he had also added his own savings from his other jobs to set up the new business. The plaintiff denied that his father in law had made him a businessman and that he was not a person who had good business abilities in his own right. He said that he could have still borrowed money from any bank to kick start that business. The plaintiff was challenged by defendant’s counsel that he was skilled in Human Resources and not in business unlike the defendant who had studied business at University. He insisted that he was business minded. He denied that the defendant had been involved in sourcing trucks for Tisu Anhu Acho company in the United Kingdom when he was in Zimbabwe. He also insisted that he had bought stand 7248 New Bordervale as a gift to the defendant. He accepted that the defendant had resigned from Tisu Anu Acho in 2013 and that the company folded up in 2019 and remained only in name. He denied the criticism that when the defendant resigned from Tisu Anhu Acho, he failed to run the business on his own. He attributed the fall of the business to their marital conflicts. The plaintiff conceded that Cavalla Farm was in excess of 200 hectares in size. It has a dam which retains water throughout the year when rains have been good. It has two boreholes. It is in Nyazura under Region One. It has four houses. It is partly mechanised. It has some irrigation though the equipment is currently not working. He conceded that there is one tractor that is working. The plaintiff denied the criticism that he was fond of running down businesses since Cavalla farm was not operating at its optimum level since the defendant left him to run it alone. He attributed the poor production at the farm to their marital conflicts. The plaintiff denied the defendant’s allegation that they had opted to have his guinea fowl totem in the logo of the school to honour him as well since in the Tisu Anhu Acho Business they had put the defendant’s totem of a lion as a logo. He conceded that in applying for the school and filing forms and so forth, he was doing it not on his individual capacity but on behalf of the school. He was pointed to the ED14 form which showed that the Responsible Authority for the school was him and the Board of Directors. He accepted that the school business was a stand - alone entity in terms of its Constitution which gave birth to the school. The school has a headmaster. The defendant is a Director as well at the school and she is involved in administration and accounts. He conceded that the school project was financed from loans which were borrowed by the school and not himself as an individual. He was pointed to a board resolution which authorised him to borrow money on behalf of the school. The loans were secured by mortgaging the matrimonial properties. The loan repayments were being accounted for by the school as the school’s liabilities. The other funds came from the disposal of their assets and this was their collective decision as a couple. He denied that such assets had been acquired using the money from the joint business with the defendant in the United Kingdom. He insisted that he was doing his extra jobs to raise money. The plaintiff further accepted that he was made to run around and do much of the work when the school was in its formative stage for the reason that by then the defendant was nursing their minor children at home. He accepted that he was the head of the home in the traditional sense. It also came out clear that both parties are currently paid monthly salaries by the school business in the sum of US$1000. None of them takes drawings. He denied that the defendant was better placed to run the school than himself. THE PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN RE - EXAMINATION The plaintiff denied that the defendant had been a Manager at Millenium Nursing Care as she allegedly did not make overall decisions, source contracts and fix salary rates. He accepted that they had bought a house in Borrowdale, Harare for his father in law and also that they had borrowed 10 000 British Pounds from him as capital investment for Millenium Recruitment Business. He denied having run down any business. He insisted having played a major role in the set up of the School project. He told this court that the school project was realising an average monthly profit of about US$7000. The enrolment stood at about 460 for both Primary and Secondary intake. The school fees for ECD children was US$250 per term while grades 1 and 2 paid US$300 per term. The fees for grade 3 up to Secondary level was at US$350 per term. The rentals realised from the house in the UK were 1 900 British Pounds. THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE Most of the defendant’s version was put to the plaintiff during cross examination. She was brought up and educated in the United Kingdom where she resided with her parents Mr and Mrs Mashingaidze. At the time of her marriage to the defendant, she was in a partnership with her father at Millenium Nursing Care. The very nature of the business required that one of the partners or Directors had to be a Registered Nurse. Her father was such. They provided government, private hospitals and nursing homes with nurses, nurse aids and general hands. She had started working as a nurse aid earlier whilst still doing form 5 and at that level she did business studies and accounting as one of her subjects at school. Her father was a nurse at a hospital. She did Business and Computer studies at University. She observed that recruitment agencies were making money and she had a passion for such business. She approached her parents for funding and also sought to partner with her father who was in the nursing field. When the parties got married in 1999, the plaintiff joined Millenium Nursing Care as well and they would all source contracts and they also covered shifts as nurse aids while her father would also cover shifts as a nurse. She said that one could only be a manager of a nursing care if he or she was a qualified nurse or possessing a National Vocational Qualification in care work which both of them did not have. Her father in law then felt that it would be proper for him to opt out of the business so that they could run it as a couple. He did so and hence her partnership with him was dissolved and a new partnership was created between herself and the plaintiff. Without her father who was a nurse, they were forced to stop recruiting nurses and hence the business was changed to Millenium Recruitment. They retained most of the contracts involving nurse aids which were a backbone of the business. She denied that her father had closed the previous business because the country had joined the European Union in 2000. She said the United Kingdom had joined the European Union way back in 1973 and opted out during Covid time. The defendant further stated that they borrowed about 10 000 to 15 000 British Pounds from her father to start Millenium Recruitment business. They returned the amount and also bought a property in Borrowdale for her parents as a token of appreciation for their gesture of kindness. According to her, the Millenium Recruitment business which they ran together with the plaintiff is the one that financed all their matrimonial assets regardless of whose name the properties were registered under. Around 2003 thereabout, they resolved to relocate to Zimbabwe as a couple and that is when they started investing in this country. The first business that they established was Tisu Anu Acho which was a haulage truck company and both were Directors there until she resigned sometime in 2013. She denied that there was any threat to their personal assets due to the labour case. She claimed that the company was still operational and that it had trucks. This was denied by the plaintiff although it was not denied that the company was still registered as a legal entity. She testified that the company should be awarded to the plaintiff because she is no longer a director there and even the security personnel were denying her entry to its premises at the Natvest Industrial Stand which stand she also testified that it should be awarded to the plaintiff for convenience of that business. She said that the premises at Natvest Industrial Park were being rented out to various businesses at no less than US$2000 per month. This figure was denied by the plaintiff on cross examination. It was also the defendant’s testimony that Cavalla farm was another business which the plaintiff was running with profit. She claimed to have seen one of the managers of the farm who showed her a motor vehicle which was allegedly purchased through the sale of tobacco which is cultivated at the farm. She said that the workers would not be at the farm if it was not functioning. They would have resigned to go and look for other viable jobs. Her testimony was that the court should award the farm to the plaintiff who has a passion in farming. She does not have such passion herself. She is an office person who should be awarded the school business. The defendant’s testimony was that the school business was her idea. They had realised as a couple that apart from the haulage truck business and the farm, they needed a business where she as a lady could work on a day to day basis and find fulfilment. It was the school. She applied for a piece of land from the City of Mutare in 2011. She had misplaced the letter in question. Her resignation from Tisu Anu Acho in 2013 was to concentrate on the school business. They were offered the lease in 2013. They then resolved to sell their two properties in Harare, one registered in joint names while the other was in plaintiff’s name. They worked hard as a couple. Although she typed most of the documentation, she would defer to her husband as the traditional family leader to sign and also take the lead in the school business. She would at times be attending to the minor children at home and also there was a time when she had a complicated pregnancy and delivery which needed hospitalisation in the United Kingdom for herself and the baby who had been prematurely delivered. She was involved in the school administration both prior and after its opening in 2015. She has been working there full time. The plaintiff would come on a part time basis up to 2021 when the trucking business was no longer performing at its best. She testified that it would be just and proper that she be awarded the school business in its entirety as the plaintiff would have the other two businesses to run. She also agreed with the plaintiff that the two could not co – exist and run the school jointly because of a lot of disagreements. The defendant also testified that it would be just and equitable that she be awarded the matrimonial home being stand 7247 together with the adjacent one being 7248 which she says was bought by the joint efforts of both parties and not as a surprise gift as claimed by the plaintiff. She lamented that if the matrimonial property is sold, she will be left homeless together with her major and minor children who reside there. She said that she realises monthly rentals of US$300 from the self - contained apartment and the cottage at that house. Under cross examination, she was challenged that she had not tendered any evidence to prove that Tisu Anu Acho was still operating. She was challenged that she had not produced any document that she signed concerning the school. She insisted that she had co signed the lease agreement with the plaintiff. She maintained that the school logo of a guinea fowl was agreed upon to honour the plaintiff’s family since Tisu Anu Acho had her family totem of a lion. She insisted that she was a key person in the administration and running of the school. Both parties did not call additional witnesses. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE The evidence adduced before me shows that the plaintiff and the defendant were a hardworking couple. They were blessed with four children of whom only one is still a minor. The rest are at tertiary level and some have completed some courses. Both parties testified well. Apart from bias towards each other’s case and inaccuracy in stating facts, I did not discern any intention on either of them to deliberately mislead the court. They both directly and indirectly contributed to the acquisition and development of all their assets. It is common cause that after their marriage in 1999, they both worked at Millenium Nursing Care with defendant’s father at managerial level. The defendant was already working there with her father by the time of the marriage. Her father then opted out of the business to leave the couple to run it. This led to the dissolution of this business and the formation of Millenium Recruitment business. This later business was financed by the defendant’s father who provided a loan of not less than 10 000 British Pounds as the capital investment. This new business benefited from a bulk of contracts from the previous one. The loan from the defendant’s father was fully paid up. Whether the loan was repaid through cash or kind by purchasing a house in Borrowdale is not material. What is material is that this loan was repaid and that this couple worked hard at Millenium Recruitment to generate income for the rest of the investments and projects that then took place in Zimbabwe. Whilst it is acceptable that the plaintiff might have supplemented this income by doing other extra jobs on part time as per his claim, there is no evidence that such extra income generated from such extra jobs was so much significant to the extent that he could be said to have made more financial contribution to the acquisition of any of the family assets. My assessment of the evidence adduced by both parties is that they worked together and that they both worked very hard. Both parties are very educated and equally capable and qualified to start and manage businesses. The defendant’s testimony that she was a submissive wife who would sometimes defer to her husband to lead in signing the paperwork and chairing the school board cannot be dismissed as idle tale. There were times whereby she would be away from the country on maternity reasons and at certain instances she was attending to the minor children at home while the plaintiff was involved in the family projects especially the school. This was her indirect contribution and yet this does not discount the fact that she also made financial contribution. When the parties relocated to Zimbabwe, they did so together as there was no marked long period of time when the plaintiff was working alone on the projects in Zimbabwe. They would travel together and at some instances in the initial stages, the defendant would remain running Millenium Recruitment business which was the major source of income in financing all the projects that were undertaken in Zimbabwe. They sold their jointly acquired assets to finance the school project. The school itself borrowed loans from the bank to boast its construction and initial operations. It was not the plaintiff’s evidence that the defendant was a mere housewife or that she was lazy. She was not lazy. Both parties were and still remain hard workers. Both parties are currently actively involved in running the school business and both have key roles in its administration and both have its vision but both of them accept that they cannot run it together since they are no longer in love. Their disagreements will destroy this business or stunt its growth. The defendant currently resides at the matrimonial home being stand number 7247 which is also home for the children. It is a spacious home and a double story house with a cottage and a self – contained apartment which are being rented out. The defendant left the matrimonial home and he is renting an equally comfortable house at his own expense. THE LAW AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE CASE The assets of the spouses at divorce are distributed in terms of section 7(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act [Chapter 5:13] which provides as follows: “7 Division of assets and maintenance orders (1) Subject to this section, in granting a decree of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, or at any time thereafter, an appropriate court may make an order with regard to— (a) the division, apportionment or distribution of the assets of the spouses, including an order that any asset be transferred from one spouse to the other; (b) the payment of maintenance, whether by way of a lump sum or by way of periodical payments, in favour of one or other of the spouses or of any child of the marriage.” (Emphasis added) The court’s discretion in distributing the assets of spouses at divorce is guided and informed by the provisions of s 7(4) of the same Act which articulates all the factors that a court faced with this onerous task must consider and it provides thus: “(4) In making an order in terms of subsection (1) an appropriate court shall 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; and in so doing the court shall endeavour as far as is reasonable and practicable and, having regard to their conduct, is just to do so, to place the spouses and children in the position they would have been in had a normal marriage relation-ship continued between the spouses.” It is not an easy task for a court of law to distribute assets between divorcing parties because such assets are usually acquired at a time when the parties are still committed to their marital vows of living together until death separates them. In this case, the parties acquired many assets together. The starting point will be to consider those assets where the parties agree as to who should be the owner or what should happen upon divorce. Both parties agreed that upon dissolution of the marriage, house number 28 Chapel Road, Enfield, London should be sold and the proceeds thereof shared equally according to the laws of the United Kingdom after deduction of the outstanding mortgage loan amount. This court is clothed with jurisdiction to distribute property situated in the United Kingdom according to the laws of England. See Beckford v Beckford SC25/09. The English law regarding the distribution of the assets of the spouses at divorce has now been held to be similar to that of this country in so far as it requires the court to consider all the relevant circumstances in arriving at an equitable distribution of the marital assets. See Makoni v Makoni SC 57/25. The wishes of the parties will be respected accordingly. Both parties also agreed that stand 7248 New Bordervale, Mutare should be awarded to the defendant at divorce. This property is registered in her names under the City of Mutare. It only has a swimming pool. As for stand 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, both parties had initially prayed that it be sold and the proceeds shared equally but during the trial, the defendant then preferred that it be awarded to the plaintiff as it is the headquarters of Tisu Anu Acho, a company in which she now has no interest in. I am inclined to agree that the plaintiff should be awarded this stand in full as prayed by the defendant in her evidence. It is common cause that the defendant is no longer a director of Tisu Anu Acho. The company is still registered and existing in paper. No satisfactory evidence was presented to this court to prove that the company has any assets of value and that it is currently operating or making any profit. It used to have haulage trucks for carriage of goods on hire when it was still viable. It is common cause that it was involved in labour disputes with its workers and the trucks were sold and after that there is nothing tangible about its operations. I agree with the defendant that the plaintiff should have this company in its current state. He will see what to do about it. I also agree with the plaintiff that the company currently has nothing of value and that is why he was willing to say that the defendant should have it if she wants and she also did not want to be awarded this company. The plaintiff will be at liberty to either wound it up or resuscitate its operations after the divorce. The plaintiff has an offer letter in respect of Cavalla Farm. It is over two hundred hectares in size. This property does not belong to ether of the parties. It is government property. The court can only consider the value of the occupation rights and the business being carried out thereon as well as the value of the developments but it cannot be awarded to any of the parties. See Chombo v Chombo SC 41/18. The farm has good sources of water. There is a tractor. There are some workers there but there was no conclusive evidence as to whether the farm is currently generating any profit. The plaintiff attributed the lack of success of the farming business to marital conflicts and disagreements. The defendant alleged that there was tobacco farming which was generating profit but then this contradicted her earlier stance wherein she had criticised the plaintiff of being fond of running down businesses with reference to both this farm and Tisu Anu Acho company. This she did with a view to disqualify the plaintiff from being awarded the school business but it also became a concession that these two businesses are not operating viably at the moment. The defendant is currently residing at stand 7247 New Bordervale, Mutare. The parties called this their matrimonial property. The plaintiff is currently renting another property. This property is also a convenient home to the children. The defendant wants to be awarded this property as her own while the plaintiff has prayed that its value should be shared equally between the two of them. Where the parties own several properties, the court will be slow to resort to selling of properties for parties to share the proceeds where the property could be of great benefit to either of them and where after the award of such property to one of the parties, the other spouse could be compensated by being awarded other assets of equal value. If this property is to be shared equally, there are high chances of it being sold and this will cause great inconvenience to both the defendant and the children including the minor child Tsitsi. This property is siting just adjacent to stand 7248 which the parties agree that it should be awarded to the defendant. It is convenient therefore that she be awarded this property as well. The defendant has prayed that she be awarded the school business in full. The plaintiff has prayed for ninety percent of the business and offered the plaintiff only ten percent. Both parties agreed that they cannot co – exist in the school business because of disagreements. I agree. I have already found that both parties contributed to this school business and that both of them are professionally competent to run this school. None of them is indispensable in this business. I have found it more convenient, just and equitable to award the defendant the matrimonial home which is quite a comfortable home. On the other hand, the plaintiff does not have such a comfortable home of his own for now. He might have to work on a new project altogether at his own expense without any financial assistance from the defendant. I therefore find it just and equitable that he takes the school business to run it on his own. He is the responsible authority jointly with the school board. He is the contact person with the relevant government ministry as well as the local authority being the City of Mutare. Both parties agreed that this business is operating very well for now and it has the potential to grow. Its major constraint currently is that it does not own its own land as it is on a lease with the City of Mutare. I do not find merit in the contention that the defendant should have the school business simply because the plaintiff cannot have all the three businesses including Tisu Anu Acho and Cavalla farm. As I have already found, there is no evidence before this court to establish that there is meaningful profit being generated from those other two businesses. They would need to be rejuvenated at some cost in order to make profit. In any event, the plaintiff will also suffer in not having a comfortable home and it is fair that he be awarded a viable business to minimise such inconvenience to him after he worked very hard as well to acquire a stand and develop a comfortable home. The defendant would also benefit from the rentals from the matrimonial home. She is competent to start any other business of her own after she receives her share of the proceeds of the house in London whose evaluation at 650 000 British Pounds was not contested. There are also several other movable assets like motor vehicles that she can dispose of to raise capital for any business of her own. In view of the above considerations, it will be ordered as follows: A decree of divorce be and is hereby granted.Custody of the minor child namely; N Mawadzi (born 1 April 2013) be and is hereby awarded to the defendant.The plaintiff shall have access rights to the minor child during alternate weekends and also during half of the school holiday.The plaintiff and defendant shall contribute equally towards the educational needs of all their children as and when they undertake their studies.The defendant be and is hereby awarded ownership of stand 7247 New Bordervale, Mutare as her sole and exclusive property. 5.1 The plaintiff shall sign all the necessary papers to effect and facilitate transfer of the said stand from his names to that of the defendant which transfer shall be at the defendant’s expense within 30 days of this order failing which the Sheriff of this court shall be directed and authorised to sign all such papers on plaintiff’s behalf. The defendant be and is hereby awarded ownership of stand 7248 New Bordervale, Mutare as her sole and exclusive property.House number 28 Chapel Road, Enfield, London in the United Kingdom shall be evaluated at the expense of both parties and be sold and the proceeds thereof shall be shared equally between the parties after deduction of the balance of the outstanding mortgage loan.The plaintiff be and is hereby awarded Manicaland Christian School business which is currently leasing stand 11846 Edward Road, Florida, Mutare as his sole and exclusive business. The defendant shall continue to be paid her salary of US$1000 per month from the school business for the months of July, August and September 2025. The plaintiff be and is hereby awarded ownership of stand 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare as his sole and exclusive property. 9.1 The defendant shall sign all the necessary papers to transfer her half share of the said stand to the plaintiff at the plaintiff’s expense within 30 days of this order failing which the Sheriff of this court shall be directed and authorised to sign all such papers on defendant’s behalf. The plaintiff be and is hereby awarded Tisu Anu Acho (Private) Limited as his sole and exclusive company or business. The plaintiff be and is hereby awarded the following movable assets: Industry Equipment Timber Milling MachineryMilling MachineryLeith Machine Vehicles 441-226S Boat824-062T TrailerAAZ 0652 TrailerAAZ 0604 TrailerABJ 4055 HorseABJ 4058 Green HorseABZ 2916 Blue HorseACZ 3352 TankerADJ 2272 Fielder ToyotaNO PLATES InternationalAAS 8215 Short Trailer Household Items Ikea Bed Wooden Book Shelf Wooden Cd Shelf Double Bed Single Bed Double Bed Round Coffee Table Radio Speakers Glass Radio Stand Dressing Table Twin Bedside Tables Green Study Table Head Board Grey Washing Machine Grey Dryer Pink Baby Tub 2 Ironing Boards 2 Side Cabinets White Fan Step Machine Industrial Scales Twin Bedside Tables Wooden Shoe Rack Towel Rail Silver Bullet Bin2 Blue VasesBlack Sofa SetCream Sofa SetBlack SofaCoffee TableCopper ClockSekuru Mawadzi PhotoArmy Shields3 Bulb LampGranite CarvingSlug MachineSmall Display CabinetSilver ClockPurple High ChairPhoto ShingiWedding PhotoGirl & Leopard PicWoman Wooden CarvingGumi & Bro PhotoGirls Praying PicVase in frame10 Fishing Rods2 StoolsWooden Pendulum ClockSamsung TVGlass/ Wooden Coffee TableStoolsLeopard RugX BoxDVD PlayerSpeakersDisplay CabinetLarge Brown RugMetal Fire GuardSwing SeatMassage Machine2 Side TablesExecutive TableSwivel ChairBankers LightCabinetRadioCoat HangerGlass Coffee TableDocument TrayZim FlagFlower PictureAfrican PictureFlowers & VaseChild PhotoWooden Carving6 Cream Dining ChairsWooden CupboardFridgeBunk Bed FrameDay Bed FrameSuper King Size Bed FrameTV StandInfinity SpeakerWhite Microwave2 BicyclesCar SeatSteam Machine with StandClothes Rail2 Blue Sun loungers5 Folding Chairs Wooden Dining Table Shower Set Solar Lights Wall Lights Bath Waste Kitchen Tap Bathroom Tap Hub Bearing Set 6 Goggles 2 Ear Protector Black Drill Grey Light 2 Filters RCD Adaptor Various Tool Various Tool Vehicle Belt Plumbing Pipes 2 Metal Storage Shelves Black Iron Wooden Bread Bin 4 White Kettles 1 Silver Kettle 1 Grey KettleKenwood Coffee maker Panini Sandwich Maker Toasted Sandwich Maker Cook work Grey Toaster Blue Square Ceramic Pan Salton Hand Mixer 7 Plastic Cups 1 Cream Metal Bucket 1 Green small Metal Bucket Rice Cooker Green Kettle Samsung Twin Fridge 1 thick Aluminium Pot Meat Griller 2 Pick n Pay deep pans 2 Pick n Pay shalow Pans 4 Large Frying Pans 4 Small Frying Pans 1 Medium Frying Pan 6 Pressure Cookers 5 Small Pots Black Slow Cooker 4 Small Black pots Glen Electric Fan Heater 3 Aluminium Trays 2 Plastic Cereal ContainersElectric Steamer Steal Steamer Containers Sterilizer Large Glass Vase 2 Beer Large Mugs 2 Medium Beer Mugs 1 Microwave Bowls 4 Metal plates Z Travel Mugs 3 Plastic Measuring Jugs1 Glass Container 3 Flasks 3 Lid Glass jugs Yellow Metal Teapot 3 Plastic bowls 2 lunch boxes 2 large Casserole dishes 1 Medium Casserole dish 1 Small Casserole dishes 2 Ikea plates Large Yellow Fruit Bowl Gas Kettle 5 Ice Cube Trays Electric Pan Red Food Warmer 3 White Food Warmer1 Blender Bowl Clear Jug Red Lid 6 Metal Plates Blue White Plastic Jug Juicer Paris Tray Set Elephant Tray Fish Tray Black Round Tray Glass Flower Tray2 Wooden BoardsBrown Chopping Board9 Wooden Coasters6 Place MattsPlastic Potato Masher.Slotted SpoonWooden Sadza Spoons2 Potato Peelers3 Fish Forks3 Wooden SpoonsGarlic CrusherMeat TenderizerSadza Whisk3 MugotiGrater2 LadlesBraai Utensil SetLarge Metal Fork1 Bread Knife5 Small Knives10 Forks6 Tea Spoons2 Table SpoonsDrink Opener2 Can Openers1 Oven TrayLarge Black Slow Cooker4 Plastic Drinks BottleRed & White Plastic BowlWhite Plastic BowlBlack IronFish ServerRectangle PotRound PotMedium PotWhite & Gold Tea setBrown Tribal Dinner SetBlack Flower SetGreen & White SetCream Circle Set Pink & Cream Set Pink & Blue Tea Set4 Brown Flower Plates1 Orange Flower PlatesBrown Clay Plates9 Heavy Cream PlatesFarm Water Glass 3 Red Rose Bowls Glass Plate 2 wine glasses 5 Pillows Cream & White Duvet 3 Duvets Blue 2in 1 Black & White 2 in 1 Grey 2 in 1 Green Bedspread Cream Bedspread 1 single duvet 1 stripped thin Pink & White thin Navy Blue thin Brown Red Peach Small Red Blanket Brown Rug BlanketZebra blanket The defendant be and is hereby awarded the following movable assets: Industry Equipment Chicken Abattoir MachineryIndustrial Freezers Vehicles AAO 2079 Hino Truck AAS 8168 TrailerAAZ 0653 TrailerABK 1945 Gold BMWABN 5257 Civilian NissanACE 6311 Hiace ToyotaADQ 5223 Land CruiserADS 0629 Brown HorseADX 2873 Honda FitADZ 9355 TankerAAF 8496 Yellow Horse Household Items White Study Table White Metal Shoe Rack Black Clothes Rail White Dryer Leather Sofa Rowing Machine Dressing Table & Mirror Toy Kitchen Tread Mill Table & Chair Set Towel Rail Double Beds x2 Super King Size Bed Single Bed Dressing Table Cream Pedal Bin Top & Tail Dish Pink Underwear Dryer Bathroom Scales Bosh Freezer Massage Machine Black Sofa Red Sofa Set Pillar Coffee Table Lamp Table Samsung Television Radio SpeakersElephant PictureGold ClockWhite Photo GridPicture Of ChildrenPicture Of RatiPicture Of Rati with SiblingsTsitsi's ShieldsWhite Book ShelfWooden VarsesGrey Metal Cupboard2 Mannequinn Stands3 Blue Sun loungers6 Folding ChairsStoveOutside Light SetWashing MachineGreen Utensils SetSlotted SpoonWhiskPallete KnifeRed Sadza SpoonWhite Kettle Water Jug5 Ice Cube TraysGreen Chopping Board4 Glass CoastersRolling PinMetal Potato MasherYellow Lemon Squeezer9 Cake Tins1 Oven Tray5 Very Small Square Cake Tins4 Very Small Round Cake TinsGreen Rubber Cake Tin2 Flan Tins1 Metal Long Cake Tin1 Star Cake TinLarge Green TrayFlower Trays SetDoughnut TrayBeach TrayCake Tin TrayGlass Flan DishSandwich Cake Tins6 Ikea PlatesGlass Fruit Bowl2 Sieves1 Serving PotWooden Chicken Egg HolderLarge Silver TeapotSmall Metal Teapot 3 Plastic 2 Lunch Boxes 2 Large Cassarole Dishes 1 Medium Casserole Dish 1 Small Casserole Dish Samsung Fridge 2 Pick N Pay Deep Frying Pans 2 Pick N Pay Shallow Frying Pans Cream Slow Cooker 5 Small Pots Square Vase 2 Cereal Containers Steal Steamer Containers Small Green Lid Glass ContainerSmall Travel Kettle White Ceramic Bowl] Cast Iron Black Pot 2 Large Beer Mugs 2 Medium Beer Mugs White Sandwich Maker 1 Microwave Bowls 1 Travel Mug 1 Glass Measuring Jug 1 Plastic Measuring Jug1 Yellow Plastic Jug 1 Blender Bowl Glass Bottle With Blue Lid 1 Plastic Drinks Bottle 1 Glass Container1 Green Flask3 Lid Large JugsNew Boxed IronWhite Small IronBlack SetYellow & White SetGlass SetWater Melon SetGold Cross Stripe SetBrown Flower SetWhite & Gold Tea SetFruit Tea Set3 Red Rose BowlGlass Plate3 Wine Glasses3 Red Rose BowlGlass Plate3 Wine GlassesSchool SuppliesToilet Roll HoldersSoap Dispensers10 Pink & White Mugs10 ECD Graduation Gowns Books Exercise BooksText Books Each party shall bear its own costs. Makombe & Associates, plaintiff’s legal practitioners Maunga Maanda & Associates, defendant’s legal practitioners 37 HCMTJ 42-25 R-HCMT 129/18 37 HCMTJ 42-25 R-HCMT 129/18 GUMISANI MAWADZI versus RATIDZAI HAZEL MAWADZI (NEE MASHINGAIDZE) HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE SIZIBA J MUTARE, 29 May, 13 & 20 June,10 & 23 July 2025 MATRIMONIAL ACTION Advocate Chinwawadzimba with Mr P. Makombe, for the plaintiff Mr P. Nyakureba with Ms S. Mungofa & Ms D. Mutungura, for the defendant SIZIBA J: This has been a highly contested and protracted matrimonial action. The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on the 18th of September 2018 praying for a decree of divorce and ancillary relief which included custody of the children and division of the assets of the spouses. The plaintiff’s summons and declaration were countered by the defendant’s elaborate plea and counterclaim which ballooned the contested issues to include spousal maintenance as well as maintenance of the children, custody of the minor children, the distribution of both movable and immovable assets. THE PLEADINGS In terms of the Joint Pre – Trial Conference Minute dated 21 October 2020 which was held in chambers before Mwayera J (as she then was), it was agreed that the issues for trial were as follows: What constitutes the assets of the parties which qualify for apportionment and distribution and / or division in terms of the Matrimonial Causes Act? What would constitute a just, fair and equitable distribution of the assets of the parties? Whether or not the Defendant is entitled to post—divorce spousal maintenance, and if so the quantum and period thereof? What constitutes a fair and reasonable quantum of maintenance for each of the minor children? Whether the Plaintiff's conduct during the marriage constitutes gross marital misconduct deserving of censure in the redistribution order and by way of a punitive order of costs? Whether the Defendant’s conduct during the marriage constitutes gross marital misconduct deserving of censure in the redistribution order and by way of a punitive order of costs? Whether Makombe and Associates should act for the Plaintiff in this action given their prior representation of both parties and their business before the institution of the divorce proceedings. The following issues were agreed upon at the Pre – Trial Conference: That the marriage has irretrievably broken down. That the Defendant shall have custody of all the three minor children. That the Plaintiff will have reasonable access to the minor children every alternate weekend and for half of each school holiday when the children are in Zimbabwe. The Plaintiff shall cater for all the educational needs of Tinotenda Mawadzi inclusive of tuition, transport, accommodation and upkeep costs up to the completion of his first degree. That the parties’ movables be distributed as per the Annexures to the Defendant’s Claim in Reconvention. The parties were married to each other on the 4th of June 1999 in the United Kingdom. They were blessed with four children namely: Tinotenda Mawadzi (born 18 December 2000) Shingai Mawadzi (born 23 March 2003) Tsitsi Mawadzi (born 17 December 2004) N Mawadzi (born 1 April 2013) The suggested distribution of the immovable property in terms of the plaintiff’s declaration was as follows: 9/10 shares of Manicaland Christian School to both parties. 1/2 shares of stand 5737 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare to both parties. 1/2 shares of stand 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare to both parties. 1/2 shares of number 28 Capel Road Enfield, London, EN 1-4, ESP to both parties. 1/2 shares of number 7247 new Bordervale, Mutare to both parties. In terms of the defendant’s Plea and Counterclaim, she suggested that she be awarded the following immovable properties namely: Stand 7248 New Bordervale, Mutare. Stand 11846 Edward Road, Florida. 28 Chapel Road, Enfield, UK. Stand 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare. The defendant in her Plea and Counterclaim suggested that the plaintiff be awarded the following immovable assets namely: Stand 7247 New Bordervale, Cavalla Farm. Stand 5737 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare. Marondera Curve Farm Plot. On the 28th of November 2024, the defendant amended her counterclaim so that she could be awarded the following immovable property: Stand 7248 New Bordervale, Mutare (which she had already claimed) 100% share in Manicaland Christian School. 50% share of 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Feruka Road, Mutare. Stand 7247 New Bordervale, Mutare. In her Plea and Counterclaim, the defendant’s claim for her own maintenance was in the sum of US$2000 and she had also claimed a sum of US$500 in respect of the minor child. PRELIMINARY ISSUES AT THE TRIAL At the commencement of the trial, the parties confirmed that the rest of the issues were no longer contentious save for issues number 1 and 2 in the Joint Pre Trial Minute of 21 October 2020 as follows: What constitutes the assets of the parties which qualify for apportionment and distribution and / or division in terms of the Matrimonial Causes Act? What would constitute a just, fair and equitable distribution of the assets of the parties? It was also confirmed by both counsel that the parties had agreed to share 50% costs in the educational needs of all the children as and when they undertake their tertiary studies. The parties also confirmed that the distribution of the movable assets would remain as agreed in their joint pre trial minute referred to above save for the motor vehicles. They agreed that they would file a schedule for the distribution of their movable assets which would reflect the current situation. This they subsequently did and hence the movable assets shall be distributed according to the parties’ distribution list which is filed of record. THE PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE The plaintiff gave an outline of the assets of the spouses and his proposed distribution of such assets as articulated hereunder. STAND 7247 NEW BORDERVALE, MUTARE Concerning stand 7247 New Bordervale (hereinafter called stand 7247), the plaintiff told this court that that was the matrimonial home where the defendant is currently staying and when the children are around that is where they also stay. He bought the stand in 2003 and built a house thereon in 2004. The stand cost $293 000 in the moribund Zimbabwe dollar currency. It is a double story property with two bedrooms on the ground floor, a study room, kitchen, living room, dining room, laundry room, bathroom and separate toilet. Upstairs, it has 3 bedrooms, a living room, a gym, 3 bathrooms. The main bedroom has an ensuite. He moved out of this property in August 2019. The plaintiff went further to state that there is also a cottage in this matrimonial house which is being rented out to tenants by the defendant and he had no idea how much rentals are currently realised from the cottage. The cottage initially had two bedrooms but its garage has now been also converted into an apartment which is being rented out. He is currently staying at Fairbridge Park Extension, Mutare in a rented 5 bedroomed house. The plaintiff’s testimony was that he is the one who purchased the stand for the matrimonial property and also engaged a construction company to build the house at that stand. He arranged for his cousin to look after the property when the parties were still in the United Kingdom. He would send money for the building materials during the relevant time. He claimed to have contributed 80% towards this property. The defendant’s contribution according to him was that she would travel into the country with him to oversee the progress in the project. The property is registered in his names. He said that he is the one who looked for the stand and that he was directly involved in all the stages of the construction until he acquired title deeds for the property. The plaintiff told the court that when he acquired this property, he and the defendant were working at Millenium Recruitment which was a recruitment agency in the United Kingdom and both were realising a monthly salary of 1 500 British Pounds. He said that he would also do extra work to supplement his income by working as a mental health assistant nurse at a salary of 250 British Pounds a week. The plaintiff told the court that the defendant’s contribution to this property amounted to 20%. It was less than his own part. He however recognised her as the mother of his children. He wanted the parties to share the value of the property equally at 50%. He dismissed the defendant’s outright claim of 100% in this property as selfish and unreasonable since he contributed more than her to its acquisition and construction. STAND 7248 NEW BORDERVALE, MUTARE The plaintiff’s testimony was that he acquired this property in 2005. He could not remember the purchase price. It consists of a swimming pool in terms of its development. It had a gazebo that was destroyed by fire. He claimed to have contributed 100% towards its acquisition from his friend one Mr Nicholas Finch who was by then migrating to Namibia. He said that the defendant was not aware when the property was acquired as it was purchased for her as a gift when both parties were in the United Kingdom. The property was and is still registered in the defendant’s names with the City of Mutare but it has no title deed yet as he did not develop it. It is adjacent to stand 7247 such that there is one durawall surrounding both properties even though it is considered as an independent property for all other intents and purposes by the municipality of Mutare. Since this property was a gift to the defendant, the plaintiff made no claims to it. His prayer was that it should be awarded to her. STAND 5737 OF 5743 NATVEST INDUSTRIAL PARK, MUTARE The plaintiff’s testimony was that this property was jointly owned by him and the defendant in terms of the title deed. He acquired it around 2005 and 2006. It was disposed of in 2024 and the proceeds were shared equally with the defendant. STAND 5728 OF 5743 NATVEST INDUSTRIAL PARK, MUTARE This property according to the plaintiff is an industrial stand which is still remaining. It was acquired by the parties jointly in terms of financial contribution and it is registered in their joint names under its title deed. It was acquired in 2006. He accepted the defendant’s proposed 50% share to both parties at divorce. HOUSE NUMBER 28 CHAPEL ROAD, LONDON The plaintiff’s testimony was that this property was acquired in 2007 through a mortgage loan that was jointly applied for by both parties which was 212 000 British Pounds. The property is registered under their joint names. The balance remaining in the mortgage loan is now around 45 000 British Pounds. The plaintiff’s evidence was that this property should be shared equally at 50% for each party. According to an Evaluation Report tendered by the plaintiff, this property is now valued at 635 000 British Pounds. The house is rented out to tenants and the proceeds thereof are channelled towards servicing of the mortgage loan. This property is still under the threat of being reclaimed by the bank if the parties default payment of the mortgage loan. The plaintiff claims that at some point when the defendant had travelled to London, she diverted the rentals and that the house was nearly repossessed if it was not for his swift action in engaging some lawyers in London to rescue it. THE MANICALAND CHRISTIAN SCHOOL BUSINESS The school is located at stand number 11846 Edward Road, Florida, Mutare and it has a lease agreement with the City of Mutare. It started operating in 2015 as a registered school according to the plaintiff. His testimony was that this school was his brain child. He claimed to have done everything from looking for the land, applying for its registration, applying for the permission to build. He also testified to having applied for the lease with the City of Mutare, designed the logo for the school, the enrolment forms for the learners, designed recruitment forms for the staff and even made the business proposal for the project. He did not recall any role that the defendant had played in the school business apart from joining him in working in the school administration when the school became operational. Concerning the funding of the school project, the plaintiff testified that he sold a number of properties and also borrowed some money from financial institutions. Another loan was in the sum of US$37 000 which he used to buy roofing tiles. He sold a house in Greendale, Harare which was registered in his name. He also sold another house in Avondale, Harare which was jointly owned with the defendant. He also sold a stand which was registered in his own names in Nyakamete Industrial Park, Mutare. The plaintiff’s further testimony was that during the construction of the school, he did not hire a construction company but he used to hire individual workers and he also used the services of the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services. He was at the site. There were times when they worked day and night so as to meet the deadline of opening the school by January 2015. The plaintiff also testified that prior to the construction of the school, he engaged a company to do an Environmental Impact Assessment. There was a time when the proposal to build the school was rejected. He had to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister. He arranged to source water for construction from the neighbours when the school had no water. By then, the defendant was in the United Kingdom. The school now offers both primary and secondary education. He is fully involved in the school. He goes there almost daily to open for the workers even on Saturdays before going to church. His further testimony was that he represents the school in the National Employment Council for the private schools. He has been involved in every dispute with employees even to the extent of attending at the Labour Court. He testified that the defendant’s role in the formation of the school was just general support. When the school became operational, she has been the school’s administrator doing accounting. The plaintiff does recruitment and training of staff. He did the mission statement, the values and he is the Responsible Authority with the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education. The school has a logo of a guinea fowl which is his totem. He testified that currently he is the Director of the school and Chairperson of the School Board while the defendant is the Vice Chairperson. The School has a Constitution. The plaintiff estimated that the school project had been constructed at the cost of US$450 000 to US$500 000. He estimated the value of the school buildings at US$500 000. He denied the defendant’s allegation that the school was her brainchild. He said that the defendant did not do any write up or fill any form in the formation of the school. He testified that the school currently owes US$2000 to ZIMRA in Pay As You Earn taxes. It also owes about the same figure in rates at the City of Mutare. The school lease is for 99 years and of such, 80 years is remaining. The school is owing as highlighted above due to the broken marriage whereby there are disagreements on how to do things. He dismissed the defendant’s 100% claim to the school business and insisted that he would offer her a 10% share of its value. THE CAVALLA FARM The plaintiff testified that this farm belongs to the State and that he was offered the same in terms of an offer letter by the Ministry of Lands dated 5 June 2003. It is not private property. He told the court that the boundaries for this farm have been changed four times due to further subdivisions. He said that it was not possible for him to be awarded this farm as it was not his asset. This is why he had excluded it from being part of the assets that could be shared or distributed in his pleadings. There was no meaningful activity at the farm for now due to the squabbles between the parties which were a built up to the divorce matter. The workers were utilising the farm to produce their own food for now. He denied that there was some serious enterprise going on there. He said that there was someone who had requested to keep his cattle there and some eight goats. TISU ANHU ACHO COMPANY The plaintiff testified that this company was incorporated around 2006. He and the defendant were the shareholders. Around 2013, the company was owing some moneys from a Labour case which they had lost and the creditors were bent upon attaching their personal assets and that is when they decided to sell the remaining motor vehicles so as to minimise loss. This was a haulage truck business. The company has not been operational for some years. He attributed the collapse of the business to the quarrels in their marriage whereby he alleged that the defendant would tell the customers not to hire the trucks as she was not benefiting from the company. The workers left and all the trucks were sold. He said the company simply does not exist. He cannot be awarded same. The defendant can have it 100% if she wants it. CONCLUSION OF PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN CHIEF The plaintiff concluded his evidence in chief by telling the court that his suggested distribution of the matrimonial assets was fair and reasonable. He also told the court that the defendant holds a degree in Computers and Business Studies from Middlessex University. On his part, he holds a Professional Diploma in Human Resources Management, a Post Graduate Diploma in Human Resources Management and a Multi - Disciplinary Masters Degree in Human Resources Management, all from Middlessex University. THE PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER TESTIMONY UNDER CROSS EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL The plaintiff was subjected to vigorous, intense and protracted cross examination by defendant’s counsel. What came out from the plaintiff’s concessions under cross examination was that he had overstated his own role and contribution in so far as the acquisition and development of the assets of the parties was concerned. The role and contribution made by the defendant had been downplayed. This is not to say that the plaintiff had not played a major role and contributed immensely to the assets of the spouses. Notwithstanding this, however, the plaintiff still struck me as an honest witness who was quick to concede facts which were not favourable to his interests. I did not also discern an intention on his part to make life difficult for the defendant and his children due to the unfortunate break down of the marital union. The plaintiff agreed that the defendant migrated to the United Kingdom at the age of 5 years and lived there with her parents. She did her degree in Computer Science and Business Studies in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff agreed also that he arrived in the United Kingdom in the early nineties. He agreed that at the time that they got married in 1999, the defendant was working at Millenium Nursing Care with her father. He denied that she was employed as a Manager even though their Marriage Certificate reflected that she was by then a Business Manager. The Marriage Certificate reflected that the plaintiff himself was by then a student. The plaintiff told the court that Millenium Nursing Care, which was her father in law’s business closed down due to change of operational requirements owing to the British government’s resolve to join the European Union. They then took over and opened a new business called Millenium Recruitment where they worked both as Directors with defendant. The defendant’s father gave plaintiff a loan of 10 000 British Pounds to finance the new business. The plaintiff returned this money thereafter by buying the defendant’s father a house in Borrowdale, Harare. The plaintiff was not willing to accept that he had inherited the business from his father in law. He insisted that the old business had closed up and he started a new business altogether. He accepted that he benefited by taking over the contracts of the old business. He insisted that he had also added his own savings from his other jobs to set up the new business. The plaintiff denied that his father in law had made him a businessman and that he was not a person who had good business abilities in his own right. He said that he could have still borrowed money from any bank to kick start that business. The plaintiff was challenged by defendant’s counsel that he was skilled in Human Resources and not in business unlike the defendant who had studied business at University. He insisted that he was business minded. He denied that the defendant had been involved in sourcing trucks for Tisu Anhu Acho company in the United Kingdom when he was in Zimbabwe. He also insisted that he had bought stand 7248 New Bordervale as a gift to the defendant. He accepted that the defendant had resigned from Tisu Anu Acho in 2013 and that the company folded up in 2019 and remained only in name. He denied the criticism that when the defendant resigned from Tisu Anhu Acho, he failed to run the business on his own. He attributed the fall of the business to their marital conflicts. The plaintiff conceded that Cavalla Farm was in excess of 200 hectares in size. It has a dam which retains water throughout the year when rains have been good. It has two boreholes. It is in Nyazura under Region One. It has four houses. It is partly mechanised. It has some irrigation though the equipment is currently not working. He conceded that there is one tractor that is working. The plaintiff denied the criticism that he was fond of running down businesses since Cavalla farm was not operating at its optimum level since the defendant left him to run it alone. He attributed the poor production at the farm to their marital conflicts. The plaintiff denied the defendant’s allegation that they had opted to have his guinea fowl totem in the logo of the school to honour him as well since in the Tisu Anhu Acho Business they had put the defendant’s totem of a lion as a logo. He conceded that in applying for the school and filing forms and so forth, he was doing it not on his individual capacity but on behalf of the school. He was pointed to the ED14 form which showed that the Responsible Authority for the school was him and the Board of Directors. He accepted that the school business was a stand - alone entity in terms of its Constitution which gave birth to the school. The school has a headmaster. The defendant is a Director as well at the school and she is involved in administration and accounts. He conceded that the school project was financed from loans which were borrowed by the school and not himself as an individual. He was pointed to a board resolution which authorised him to borrow money on behalf of the school. The loans were secured by mortgaging the matrimonial properties. The loan repayments were being accounted for by the school as the school’s liabilities. The other funds came from the disposal of their assets and this was their collective decision as a couple. He denied that such assets had been acquired using the money from the joint business with the defendant in the United Kingdom. He insisted that he was doing his extra jobs to raise money. The plaintiff further accepted that he was made to run around and do much of the work when the school was in its formative stage for the reason that by then the defendant was nursing their minor children at home. He accepted that he was the head of the home in the traditional sense. It also came out clear that both parties are currently paid monthly salaries by the school business in the sum of US$1000. None of them takes drawings. He denied that the defendant was better placed to run the school than himself. THE PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN RE - EXAMINATION The plaintiff denied that the defendant had been a Manager at Millenium Nursing Care as she allegedly did not make overall decisions, source contracts and fix salary rates. He accepted that they had bought a house in Borrowdale, Harare for his father in law and also that they had borrowed 10 000 British Pounds from him as capital investment for Millenium Recruitment Business. He denied having run down any business. He insisted having played a major role in the set up of the School project. He told this court that the school project was realising an average monthly profit of about US$7000. The enrolment stood at about 460 for both Primary and Secondary intake. The school fees for ECD children was US$250 per term while grades 1 and 2 paid US$300 per term. The fees for grade 3 up to Secondary level was at US$350 per term. The rentals realised from the house in the UK were 1 900 British Pounds. THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE Most of the defendant’s version was put to the plaintiff during cross examination. She was brought up and educated in the United Kingdom where she resided with her parents Mr and Mrs Mashingaidze. At the time of her marriage to the defendant, she was in a partnership with her father at Millenium Nursing Care. The very nature of the business required that one of the partners or Directors had to be a Registered Nurse. Her father was such. They provided government, private hospitals and nursing homes with nurses, nurse aids and general hands. She had started working as a nurse aid earlier whilst still doing form 5 and at that level she did business studies and accounting as one of her subjects at school. Her father was a nurse at a hospital. She did Business and Computer studies at University. She observed that recruitment agencies were making money and she had a passion for such business. She approached her parents for funding and also sought to partner with her father who was in the nursing field. When the parties got married in 1999, the plaintiff joined Millenium Nursing Care as well and they would all source contracts and they also covered shifts as nurse aids while her father would also cover shifts as a nurse. She said that one could only be a manager of a nursing care if he or she was a qualified nurse or possessing a National Vocational Qualification in care work which both of them did not have. Her father in law then felt that it would be proper for him to opt out of the business so that they could run it as a couple. He did so and hence her partnership with him was dissolved and a new partnership was created between herself and the plaintiff. Without her father who was a nurse, they were forced to stop recruiting nurses and hence the business was changed to Millenium Recruitment. They retained most of the contracts involving nurse aids which were a backbone of the business. She denied that her father had closed the previous business because the country had joined the European Union in 2000. She said the United Kingdom had joined the European Union way back in 1973 and opted out during Covid time. The defendant further stated that they borrowed about 10 000 to 15 000 British Pounds from her father to start Millenium Recruitment business. They returned the amount and also bought a property in Borrowdale for her parents as a token of appreciation for their gesture of kindness. According to her, the Millenium Recruitment business which they ran together with the plaintiff is the one that financed all their matrimonial assets regardless of whose name the properties were registered under. Around 2003 thereabout, they resolved to relocate to Zimbabwe as a couple and that is when they started investing in this country. The first business that they established was Tisu Anu Acho which was a haulage truck company and both were Directors there until she resigned sometime in 2013. She denied that there was any threat to their personal assets due to the labour case. She claimed that the company was still operational and that it had trucks. This was denied by the plaintiff although it was not denied that the company was still registered as a legal entity. She testified that the company should be awarded to the plaintiff because she is no longer a director there and even the security personnel were denying her entry to its premises at the Natvest Industrial Stand which stand she also testified that it should be awarded to the plaintiff for convenience of that business. She said that the premises at Natvest Industrial Park were being rented out to various businesses at no less than US$2000 per month. This figure was denied by the plaintiff on cross examination. It was also the defendant’s testimony that Cavalla farm was another business which the plaintiff was running with profit. She claimed to have seen one of the managers of the farm who showed her a motor vehicle which was allegedly purchased through the sale of tobacco which is cultivated at the farm. She said that the workers would not be at the farm if it was not functioning. They would have resigned to go and look for other viable jobs. Her testimony was that the court should award the farm to the plaintiff who has a passion in farming. She does not have such passion herself. She is an office person who should be awarded the school business. The defendant’s testimony was that the school business was her idea. They had realised as a couple that apart from the haulage truck business and the farm, they needed a business where she as a lady could work on a day to day basis and find fulfilment. It was the school. She applied for a piece of land from the City of Mutare in 2011. She had misplaced the letter in question. Her resignation from Tisu Anu Acho in 2013 was to concentrate on the school business. They were offered the lease in 2013. They then resolved to sell their two properties in Harare, one registered in joint names while the other was in plaintiff’s name. They worked hard as a couple. Although she typed most of the documentation, she would defer to her husband as the traditional family leader to sign and also take the lead in the school business. She would at times be attending to the minor children at home and also there was a time when she had a complicated pregnancy and delivery which needed hospitalisation in the United Kingdom for herself and the baby who had been prematurely delivered. She was involved in the school administration both prior and after its opening in 2015. She has been working there full time. The plaintiff would come on a part time basis up to 2021 when the trucking business was no longer performing at its best. She testified that it would be just and proper that she be awarded the school business in its entirety as the plaintiff would have the other two businesses to run. She also agreed with the plaintiff that the two could not co – exist and run the school jointly because of a lot of disagreements. The defendant also testified that it would be just and equitable that she be awarded the matrimonial home being stand 7247 together with the adjacent one being 7248 which she says was bought by the joint efforts of both parties and not as a surprise gift as claimed by the plaintiff. She lamented that if the matrimonial property is sold, she will be left homeless together with her major and minor children who reside there. She said that she realises monthly rentals of US$300 from the self - contained apartment and the cottage at that house. Under cross examination, she was challenged that she had not tendered any evidence to prove that Tisu Anu Acho was still operating. She was challenged that she had not produced any document that she signed concerning the school. She insisted that she had co signed the lease agreement with the plaintiff. She maintained that the school logo of a guinea fowl was agreed upon to honour the plaintiff’s family since Tisu Anu Acho had her family totem of a lion. She insisted that she was a key person in the administration and running of the school. Both parties did not call additional witnesses. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE The evidence adduced before me shows that the plaintiff and the defendant were a hardworking couple. They were blessed with four children of whom only one is still a minor. The rest are at tertiary level and some have completed some courses. Both parties testified well. Apart from bias towards each other’s case and inaccuracy in stating facts, I did not discern any intention on either of them to deliberately mislead the court. They both directly and indirectly contributed to the acquisition and development of all their assets. It is common cause that after their marriage in 1999, they both worked at Millenium Nursing Care with defendant’s father at managerial level. The defendant was already working there with her father by the time of the marriage. Her father then opted out of the business to leave the couple to run it. This led to the dissolution of this business and the formation of Millenium Recruitment business. This later business was financed by the defendant’s father who provided a loan of not less than 10 000 British Pounds as the capital investment. This new business benefited from a bulk of contracts from the previous one. The loan from the defendant’s father was fully paid up. Whether the loan was repaid through cash or kind by purchasing a house in Borrowdale is not material. What is material is that this loan was repaid and that this couple worked hard at Millenium Recruitment to generate income for the rest of the investments and projects that then took place in Zimbabwe. Whilst it is acceptable that the plaintiff might have supplemented this income by doing other extra jobs on part time as per his claim, there is no evidence that such extra income generated from such extra jobs was so much significant to the extent that he could be said to have made more financial contribution to the acquisition of any of the family assets. My assessment of the evidence adduced by both parties is that they worked together and that they both worked very hard. Both parties are very educated and equally capable and qualified to start and manage businesses. The defendant’s testimony that she was a submissive wife who would sometimes defer to her husband to lead in signing the paperwork and chairing the school board cannot be dismissed as idle tale. There were times whereby she would be away from the country on maternity reasons and at certain instances she was attending to the minor children at home while the plaintiff was involved in the family projects especially the school. This was her indirect contribution and yet this does not discount the fact that she also made financial contribution. When the parties relocated to Zimbabwe, they did so together as there was no marked long period of time when the plaintiff was working alone on the projects in Zimbabwe. They would travel together and at some instances in the initial stages, the defendant would remain running Millenium Recruitment business which was the major source of income in financing all the projects that were undertaken in Zimbabwe. They sold their jointly acquired assets to finance the school project. The school itself borrowed loans from the bank to boast its construction and initial operations. It was not the plaintiff’s evidence that the defendant was a mere housewife or that she was lazy. She was not lazy. Both parties were and still remain hard workers. Both parties are currently actively involved in running the school business and both have key roles in its administration and both have its vision but both of them accept that they cannot run it together since they are no longer in love. Their disagreements will destroy this business or stunt its growth. The defendant currently resides at the matrimonial home being stand number 7247 which is also home for the children. It is a spacious home and a double story house with a cottage and a self – contained apartment which are being rented out. The defendant left the matrimonial home and he is renting an equally comfortable house at his own expense. THE LAW AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE CASE The assets of the spouses at divorce are distributed in terms of section 7(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act [Chapter 5:13] which provides as follows: “7 Division of assets and maintenance orders (1) Subject to this section, in granting a decree of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, or at any time thereafter, an appropriate court may make an order with regard to— (a) the division, apportionment or distribution of the assets of the spouses, including an order that any asset be transferred from one spouse to the other; (b) the payment of maintenance, whether by way of a lump sum or by way of periodical payments, in favour of one or other of the spouses or of any child of the marriage.” (Emphasis added) The court’s discretion in distributing the assets of spouses at divorce is guided and informed by the provisions of s 7(4) of the same Act which articulates all the factors that a court faced with this onerous task must consider and it provides thus: “(4) In making an order in terms of subsection (1) an appropriate court shall 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; and in so doing the court shall endeavour as far as is reasonable and practicable and, having regard to their conduct, is just to do so, to place the spouses and children in the position they would have been in had a normal marriage relation-ship continued between the spouses.” It is not an easy task for a court of law to distribute assets between divorcing parties because such assets are usually acquired at a time when the parties are still committed to their marital vows of living together until death separates them. In this case, the parties acquired many assets together. The starting point will be to consider those assets where the parties agree as to who should be the owner or what should happen upon divorce. Both parties agreed that upon dissolution of the marriage, house number 28 Chapel Road, Enfield, London should be sold and the proceeds thereof shared equally according to the laws of the United Kingdom after deduction of the outstanding mortgage loan amount. This court is clothed with jurisdiction to distribute property situated in the United Kingdom according to the laws of England. See Beckford v Beckford SC25/09. The English law regarding the distribution of the assets of the spouses at divorce has now been held to be similar to that of this country in so far as it requires the court to consider all the relevant circumstances in arriving at an equitable distribution of the marital assets. See Makoni v Makoni SC 57/25. The wishes of the parties will be respected accordingly. Both parties also agreed that stand 7248 New Bordervale, Mutare should be awarded to the defendant at divorce. This property is registered in her names under the City of Mutare. It only has a swimming pool. As for stand 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, both parties had initially prayed that it be sold and the proceeds shared equally but during the trial, the defendant then preferred that it be awarded to the plaintiff as it is the headquarters of Tisu Anu Acho, a company in which she now has no interest in. I am inclined to agree that the plaintiff should be awarded this stand in full as prayed by the defendant in her evidence. It is common cause that the defendant is no longer a director of Tisu Anu Acho. The company is still registered and existing in paper. No satisfactory evidence was presented to this court to prove that the company has any assets of value and that it is currently operating or making any profit. It used to have haulage trucks for carriage of goods on hire when it was still viable. It is common cause that it was involved in labour disputes with its workers and the trucks were sold and after that there is nothing tangible about its operations. I agree with the defendant that the plaintiff should have this company in its current state. He will see what to do about it. I also agree with the plaintiff that the company currently has nothing of value and that is why he was willing to say that the defendant should have it if she wants and she also did not want to be awarded this company. The plaintiff will be at liberty to either wound it up or resuscitate its operations after the divorce. The plaintiff has an offer letter in respect of Cavalla Farm. It is over two hundred hectares in size. This property does not belong to ether of the parties. It is government property. The court can only consider the value of the occupation rights and the business being carried out thereon as well as the value of the developments but it cannot be awarded to any of the parties. See Chombo v Chombo SC 41/18. The farm has good sources of water. There is a tractor. There are some workers there but there was no conclusive evidence as to whether the farm is currently generating any profit. The plaintiff attributed the lack of success of the farming business to marital conflicts and disagreements. The defendant alleged that there was tobacco farming which was generating profit but then this contradicted her earlier stance wherein she had criticised the plaintiff of being fond of running down businesses with reference to both this farm and Tisu Anu Acho company. This she did with a view to disqualify the plaintiff from being awarded the school business but it also became a concession that these two businesses are not operating viably at the moment. The defendant is currently residing at stand 7247 New Bordervale, Mutare. The parties called this their matrimonial property. The plaintiff is currently renting another property. This property is also a convenient home to the children. The defendant wants to be awarded this property as her own while the plaintiff has prayed that its value should be shared equally between the two of them. Where the parties own several properties, the court will be slow to resort to selling of properties for parties to share the proceeds where the property could be of great benefit to either of them and where after the award of such property to one of the parties, the other spouse could be compensated by being awarded other assets of equal value. If this property is to be shared equally, there are high chances of it being sold and this will cause great inconvenience to both the defendant and the children including the minor child Tsitsi. This property is siting just adjacent to stand 7248 which the parties agree that it should be awarded to the defendant. It is convenient therefore that she be awarded this property as well. The defendant has prayed that she be awarded the school business in full. The plaintiff has prayed for ninety percent of the business and offered the plaintiff only ten percent. Both parties agreed that they cannot co – exist in the school business because of disagreements. I agree. I have already found that both parties contributed to this school business and that both of them are professionally competent to run this school. None of them is indispensable in this business. I have found it more convenient, just and equitable to award the defendant the matrimonial home which is quite a comfortable home. On the other hand, the plaintiff does not have such a comfortable home of his own for now. He might have to work on a new project altogether at his own expense without any financial assistance from the defendant. I therefore find it just and equitable that he takes the school business to run it on his own. He is the responsible authority jointly with the school board. He is the contact person with the relevant government ministry as well as the local authority being the City of Mutare. Both parties agreed that this business is operating very well for now and it has the potential to grow. Its major constraint currently is that it does not own its own land as it is on a lease with the City of Mutare. I do not find merit in the contention that the defendant should have the school business simply because the plaintiff cannot have all the three businesses including Tisu Anu Acho and Cavalla farm. As I have already found, there is no evidence before this court to establish that there is meaningful profit being generated from those other two businesses. They would need to be rejuvenated at some cost in order to make profit. In any event, the plaintiff will also suffer in not having a comfortable home and it is fair that he be awarded a viable business to minimise such inconvenience to him after he worked very hard as well to acquire a stand and develop a comfortable home. The defendant would also benefit from the rentals from the matrimonial home. She is competent to start any other business of her own after she receives her share of the proceeds of the house in London whose evaluation at 650 000 British Pounds was not contested. There are also several other movable assets like motor vehicles that she can dispose of to raise capital for any business of her own. In view of the above considerations, it will be ordered as follows: A decree of divorce be and is hereby granted. Custody of the minor child namely; N Mawadzi (born 1 April 2013) be and is hereby awarded to the defendant. The plaintiff shall have access rights to the minor child during alternate weekends and also during half of the school holiday. The plaintiff and defendant shall contribute equally towards the educational needs of all their children as and when they undertake their studies. The defendant be and is hereby awarded ownership of stand 7247 New Bordervale, Mutare as her sole and exclusive property. 5.1 The plaintiff shall sign all the necessary papers to effect and facilitate transfer of the said stand from his names to that of the defendant which transfer shall be at the defendant’s expense within 30 days of this order failing which the Sheriff of this court shall be directed and authorised to sign all such papers on plaintiff’s behalf. The defendant be and is hereby awarded ownership of stand 7248 New Bordervale, Mutare as her sole and exclusive property. House number 28 Chapel Road, Enfield, London in the United Kingdom shall be evaluated at the expense of both parties and be sold and the proceeds thereof shall be shared equally between the parties after deduction of the balance of the outstanding mortgage loan. The plaintiff be and is hereby awarded Manicaland Christian School business which is currently leasing stand 11846 Edward Road, Florida, Mutare as his sole and exclusive business. The defendant shall continue to be paid her salary of US$1000 per month from the school business for the months of July, August and September 2025. The plaintiff be and is hereby awarded ownership of stand 5728 of 5743 Natvest Industrial Park, Mutare as his sole and exclusive property. 9.1 The defendant shall sign all the necessary papers to transfer her half share of the said stand to the plaintiff at the plaintiff’s expense within 30 days of this order failing which the Sheriff of this court shall be directed and authorised to sign all such papers on defendant’s behalf. The plaintiff be and is hereby awarded Tisu Anu Acho (Private) Limited as his sole and exclusive company or business. The plaintiff be and is hereby awarded the following movable assets: Industry Equipment Timber Milling Machinery Milling Machinery Leith Machine Vehicles 441-226S Boat 824-062T Trailer AAZ 0652 Trailer AAZ 0604 Trailer ABJ 4055 Horse ABJ 4058 Green Horse ABZ 2916 Blue Horse ACZ 3352 Tanker ADJ 2272 Fielder Toyota NO PLATES International AAS 8215 Short Trailer Household Items Ikea Bed Wooden Book Shelf Wooden Cd Shelf Double Bed Single Bed Double Bed Round Coffee Table Radio Speakers Glass Radio Stand Dressing Table Twin Bedside Tables Green Study Table Head Board Grey Washing Machine Grey Dryer Pink Baby Tub 2 Ironing Boards 2 Side Cabinets White Fan Step Machine Industrial Scales Twin Bedside Tables Wooden Shoe Rack Towel Rail Silver Bullet Bin 2 Blue Vases Black Sofa Set Cream Sofa Set Black Sofa Coffee Table Copper Clock Sekuru Mawadzi Photo Army Shields 3 Bulb Lamp Granite Carving Slug Machine Small Display Cabinet Silver Clock Purple High Chair Photo Shingi Wedding Photo Girl & Leopard Pic Woman Wooden Carving Gumi & Bro Photo Girls Praying Pic Vase in frame 10 Fishing Rods 2 Stools Wooden Pendulum Clock Samsung TV Glass/ Wooden Coffee Table Stools Leopard Rug X Box DVD Player Speakers Display Cabinet Large Brown Rug Metal Fire Guard Swing Seat Massage Machine 2 Side Tables Executive Table Swivel Chair Bankers Light Cabinet Radio Coat Hanger Glass Coffee Table Document Tray Zim Flag Flower Picture African Picture Flowers & Vase Child Photo Wooden Carving 6 Cream Dining Chairs Wooden Cupboard Fridge Bunk Bed Frame Day Bed Frame Super King Size Bed Frame TV Stand Infinity Speaker White Microwave 2 Bicycles Car Seat Steam Machine with Stand Clothes Rail 2 Blue Sun loungers 5 Folding Chairs Wooden Dining Table Shower Set Solar Lights Wall Lights Bath Waste Kitchen Tap Bathroom Tap Hub Bearing Set 6 Goggles 2 Ear Protector Black Drill Grey Light 2 Filters RCD Adaptor Various Tool Various Tool Vehicle Belt Plumbing Pipes 2 Metal Storage Shelves Black Iron Wooden Bread Bin 4 White Kettles 1 Silver Kettle 1 Grey Kettle Kenwood Coffee maker Panini Sandwich Maker Toasted Sandwich Maker Cook work Grey Toaster Blue Square Ceramic Pan Salton Hand Mixer 7 Plastic Cups 1 Cream Metal Bucket 1 Green small Metal Bucket Rice Cooker Green Kettle Samsung Twin Fridge 1 thick Aluminium Pot Meat Griller 2 Pick n Pay deep pans 2 Pick n Pay shalow Pans 4 Large Frying Pans 4 Small Frying Pans 1 Medium Frying Pan 6 Pressure Cookers 5 Small Pots Black Slow Cooker 4 Small Black pots Glen Electric Fan Heater 3 Aluminium Trays 2 Plastic Cereal Containers Electric Steamer Steal Steamer Containers Sterilizer Large Glass Vase 2 Beer Large Mugs 2 Medium Beer Mugs 1 Microwave Bowls 4 Metal plates Z Travel Mugs 3 Plastic Measuring Jugs 1 Glass Container 3 Flasks 3 Lid Glass jugs Yellow Metal Teapot 3 Plastic bowls 2 lunch boxes 2 large Casserole dishes 1 Medium Casserole dish 1 Small Casserole dishes 2 Ikea plates Large Yellow Fruit Bowl Gas Kettle 5 Ice Cube Trays Electric Pan Red Food Warmer 3 White Food Warmer 1 Blender Bowl Clear Jug Red Lid 6 Metal Plates Blue White Plastic Jug Juicer Paris Tray Set Elephant Tray Fish Tray Black Round Tray Glass Flower Tray 2 Wooden Boards Brown Chopping Board 9 Wooden Coasters 6 Place Matts Plastic Potato Masher. Slotted Spoon Wooden Sadza Spoons 2 Potato Peelers 3 Fish Forks 3 Wooden Spoons Garlic Crusher Meat Tenderizer Sadza Whisk 3 Mugoti Grater 2 Ladles Braai Utensil Set Large Metal Fork 1 Bread Knife 5 Small Knives 10 Forks 6 Tea Spoons 2 Table Spoons Drink Opener 2 Can Openers 1 Oven Tray Large Black Slow Cooker 4 Plastic Drinks Bottle Red & White Plastic Bowl White Plastic Bowl Black Iron Fish Server Rectangle Pot Round Pot Medium Pot White & Gold Tea set Brown Tribal Dinner Set Black Flower Set Green & White Set Cream Circle Set Pink & Cream Set Pink & Blue Tea Set 4 Brown Flower Plates 1 Orange Flower Plates Brown Clay Plates 9 Heavy Cream Plates Farm Water Glass 3 Red Rose Bowls Glass Plate 2 wine glasses 5 Pillows Cream & White Duvet 3 Duvets Blue 2in 1 Black & White 2 in 1 Grey 2 in 1 Green Bedspread Cream Bedspread 1 single duvet 1 stripped thin Pink & White thin Navy Blue thin Brown Red Peach Small Red Blanket Brown Rug Blanket Zebra blanket The defendant be and is hereby awarded the following movable assets: Industry Equipment Chicken Abattoir Machinery Industrial Freezers Vehicles AAO 2079 Hino Truck AAS 8168 Trailer AAZ 0653 Trailer ABK 1945 Gold BMW ABN 5257 Civilian Nissan ACE 6311 Hiace Toyota ADQ 5223 Land Cruiser ADS 0629 Brown Horse ADX 2873 Honda Fit ADZ 9355 Tanker AAF 8496 Yellow Horse Household Items White Study Table White Metal Shoe Rack Black Clothes Rail White Dryer Leather Sofa Rowing Machine Dressing Table & Mirror Toy Kitchen Tread Mill Table & Chair Set Towel Rail Double Beds x2 Super King Size Bed Single Bed Dressing Table Cream Pedal Bin Top & Tail Dish Pink Underwear Dryer Bathroom Scales Bosh Freezer Massage Machine Black Sofa Red Sofa Set Pillar Coffee Table Lamp Table Samsung Television Radio Speakers Elephant Picture Gold Clock White Photo Grid Picture Of Children Picture Of Rati Picture Of Rati with Siblings Tsitsi's Shields White Book Shelf Wooden Varses Grey Metal Cupboard 2 Mannequinn Stands 3 Blue Sun loungers 6 Folding Chairs Stove Outside Light Set Washing Machine Green Utensils Set Slotted Spoon Whisk Pallete Knife Red Sadza Spoon White Kettle Water Jug 5 Ice Cube Trays Green Chopping Board 4 Glass Coasters Rolling Pin Metal Potato Masher Yellow Lemon Squeezer 9 Cake Tins 1 Oven Tray 5 Very Small Square Cake Tins 4 Very Small Round Cake Tins Green Rubber Cake Tin 2 Flan Tins 1 Metal Long Cake Tin 1 Star Cake Tin Large Green Tray Flower Trays Set Doughnut Tray Beach Tray Cake Tin Tray Glass Flan Dish Sandwich Cake Tins 6 Ikea Plates Glass Fruit Bowl 2 Sieves 1 Serving Pot Wooden Chicken Egg Holder Large Silver Teapot Small Metal Teapot 3 Plastic 2 Lunch Boxes 2 Large Cassarole Dishes 1 Medium Casserole Dish 1 Small Casserole Dish Samsung Fridge 2 Pick N Pay Deep Frying Pans 2 Pick N Pay Shallow Frying Pans Cream Slow Cooker 5 Small Pots Square Vase 2 Cereal Containers Steal Steamer Containers Small Green Lid Glass Container Small Travel Kettle White Ceramic Bowl] Cast Iron Black Pot 2 Large Beer Mugs 2 Medium Beer Mugs White Sandwich Maker 1 Microwave Bowls 1 Travel Mug 1 Glass Measuring Jug 1 Plastic Measuring Jug 1 Yellow Plastic Jug 1 Blender Bowl Glass Bottle With Blue Lid 1 Plastic Drinks Bottle 1 Glass Container 1 Green Flask 3 Lid Large Jugs New Boxed Iron White Small Iron Black Set Yellow & White Set Glass Set Water Melon Set Gold Cross Stripe Set Brown Flower Set White & Gold Tea Set Fruit Tea Set 3 Red Rose Bowl Glass Plate 3 Wine Glasses 3 Red Rose Bowl Glass Plate 3 Wine Glasses School Supplies Toilet Roll Holders Soap Dispensers 10 Pink & White Mugs 10 ECD Graduation Gowns Books Exercise Books Text Books Each party shall bear its own costs. Makombe & Associates, plaintiff’s legal practitioners Maunga Maanda & Associates, defendant’s legal practitioners