JENAMI v JENAMI (274 of 2025) [2025] ZWHHC 274 (25 April 2025)

4 HH 274-25 HCH 6637/23 RICHARD JENAMI versus CONSILIA JENAMI (NEE POTE) HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAXWELL J HARARE, 11 February 2025 & 25 April 2025 Trial E R Samkange, for the Plaintiff L Rufu, for the Defendant MAXWELL J: The Plaintiff and the Defendant were married in terms of the then Marriage Act [Chapter 37] now the Marriages Act [Chapter 5:17] on the 9th of April 1987. The union was blessed with two children who are now majors. On 12 October 2023 Plaintiff issued out summons claiming a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. He stated in the declaration that the parties have developed irreconcilable differences inconsistent with a normal marriage relationship. He further stated that during the subsistence of the marriage the parties acquired two immovable properties and several movable properties. He also stated that he is leasing a farm in Mhangura from the Ministry of National Security, Lands, Land Refarm and Resettlement. He proposed the distribution of the movable and immovable property between them. Defendant gave notice of entering appearance to defend. She stated in her plea that the parties were blessed with three children, not two as stated by Plaintiff. She indicated that Plaintiff had not listed all the property acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. She listed the property and proposed its distribution. In answer, the Plaintiff stated that the additional property listed by the Defendant is not part of the matrimonial estate as it is either hired or leased to him for use on the farm. Pleadings were exchanged and a Pre-Trial conference was held. The issue referred to trial was whether the property listed by the Defendant constituted the parties matrimonial property, and if so, what is the equitable distribution thereof. The trial commenced with the Plaintiff testifying. His evidence was as follows. He was on diplomatic postings for 19 years. During the postings they acquired both movable and immovable property. The matrimonial home is in Mandara. He is now residing at Matovanyika Farm Plot Number 10/11 Robsdale Mhangura which he got under the land reform programme. He noticed very late that he was living a loveless life and decided to quit the marriage. When he advised the Defendant of that decision in 2023, he was chased away from the matrimonial home. During the subsistence of the marriage, the parties bought movable assets for the farm and the matrimonial home. In his view the farm equipment should not be distributed as that would cripple the farming activities which are his sole source of income. In addition 15 families would be affected if the farming activities ceased. Under cross examination he indicated that he was posted to four countries during his diplomatic career, South Africa, Algeria, India and Australia. Defendant was not allowed to work and would be a housewife. She only worked once in Austria on part time basis teaching at Vienna International School. He confirmed that three children had been born out of their union but one was deceased. He confirmed that the farm was allocated to them as a family but argued that Defendant as a teacher has another source of income whilst he relies on the farm. He confirmed that the parties agreed that he gets the immovable property in Greendale whilst Defendant gets the matrimonial home in Mandara. He was willing to compensate Defendant for what the court would rule to be due to her on the farm equipment. That was Plaintiff’s evidence. Defendant testified as follows. She was married to the Plaintiff traditionally in 1986 and then at court in 1987. She has been a teacher since 1986. She would leave her job to be with Plaintiff on his diplomatic postings. Plaintiff had advised her that he was not allowed to go alone whenever he was posted out of the country. Whenever they came back to live in Zimbabwe, she would be reinstated to her job with the assistance of Plaintiff’s employer. After the Austria posting in 2009 the law changed and she had to look for employment herself. She got a job in 2010 and has been employed since then. Their incomes were used jointly towards household and living expensed. On 02 September 2023 she was surprised that Plaintiff had brought his relatives and was called for a family gathering leading to their separation. She indicated that they were allocated the farm as virgin land. They pooled resources and engaged in farming together. She indicated that she wanted to continue farming after divorce. In her view she is entitled to 50% of the farm equipment. She indicated that she was responsible for the construction of accommodation for workers and a tuckshop. Under cross examination she confirmed that Plaintiff’s only source of income at the time of trial was farming. She was not willing to accept money in lieu of her share of equipment. That was the Defendant’s case. THE LAW Section 7(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act [chapter 5:13] regulates the division, appointment and distribution of assets of the spouses on dissolution of marriage. Section 7(4) of the same Act sets out factors which the court must have regard to in dividing, distributing and apportioning the assets of the spouses. These are; The income earning capacity and assets and other financial reserves which each spouse and child is likely to have in the foreseeable future.The financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each spouse and child has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future. 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.The physical and mental condition of each spouse and child.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.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. The Act further directs that in distributing apportioning and dividing the assets of the spouses, the court shall endeavor as far as is reasonable and practicable, and having regard to the conduct of the parties, where it is just to do so, place the spouse and child in the position they would have been in had a normal marriage relationship continued between the spouses. The distribution will therefore be considered in the light of the above. PLANTIFF’S REASONS AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMING EQUIPMENT Plaintiff proffered three reasons why he should be declared the sole owner of the farming equipment. Each of the reasons is considered below. That he solely acquired the farm equipment. Plaintiff’s argument was that at the time he was posted on diplomatic missions, Defendant was not allowed to work and therefore did not contribute financially to the acquisition of the assets. That argument runs foul of the established position in our law that a wife’s indirect contribution cannot be quantified in monetary terms. See Usayi v Usayi 2003 (1) ZLR 168. The reason Defendant was not working was to support the Plaintiff’s career. Plaintiff did not dispute the submission by the Defendant that he advised her that he was not allowed to go to a diplomatic mission alone. Defendant therefore contributed in a significant way to the Plaintiff’s being on diplomatic missions. Moreover, in Mufunani v Mufunani HH 32/16 it was stated that the value of indirect contribution increases with the length of time. See also Manavira v Manavira HH 803/16. The parties have been married for thirty-seven years. I am not persuaded that there is any justification regarding the Defendants’ contribution as insignificant to be disregarded. The significance of the sacrifice she made to support the Plaintiff’s career should not be downplayed. In any event it was common cause that Defendant worked on a parttime basis in Austria and that whenever they were back in Zimbabwe in between postings, Defendant would resume her employment, and her income was utilized for the good of the family. The Defendant is therefore entitled to a share of the farm equipment. That some of the farm equipment like pivots are not capable of being divided. The Plaintiff argued that it was not possible to dismantle and share some of the farm equipment like the centre pivot. To the contrary Defendant argued that there are two center pivots. There was no authority submitted in support of the submission that property that cannot be divided cannot be shared. If that were the position, none of the matrimonial homes would be shared. It is a common practice that where property is indivisible, it is valued and each party gets a share of the value with the option to buy the other out. There is no reason why that approach cannot be adopted in this case. The farm equipment that cannot be divided must be valued and each party apportioned a share. (3) That disturbing the farm equipment will cripple the farming activities being carried out at the farm. Plaintiff argued that distributing the farm equipment will destroy the livelihood of fifteen families and his sole source of income. That submission is a denial of the fact that divorce had consequences that are disruptive to an established way of life. What is fair and just in any given case may result in negative consequences for one party or for both. At the institution of divorce proceedings parties should anticipate a disruption of the established routine of their life. There is no justification for not distributing any asset of the spouses on the basis that farming activities will be crippled. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS OF THE SPOUSES IMMOVABLES As stated above the parties are agreed that each of them gets a house in Harare. It remained unresolved as to whether there is an encumbrance on stand 607 Mandara Township, Harare. The parties agreed that the Plaintiff has the responsibility of clearing all the debts causing the encumbrance. Despite the submission that all the debts were cleared, there was no proof tendered to that effect. Provision will therefore be made for the Plaintiff to clear the debts and avail the title deeds to the Defendant. The determination of the parties rights in relation to Matovanyika Farm, Plot Number 10/11 Robsdale Mhangura is in the purview of the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development. Defendant testified that she was advised that the land would be divided between them after a decree of divorce is granted. In Teejay Sibanda v Hilda SC 7/14 it was stated that the improvements on a farm belong to the parties separately and distinctly from the land on which they are located, and should therefore be subjected to apportionment between the parties on the same principle of law as applies to their other assets. The Defendant listed the improvements to include a bar, shop, grinding mill, foul run, canteen, round kitchen and workers houses. Defendant’s evidence was that the houses are on one side of the farm. The parties have an option to have the improvements evaluated and Defendant be compensated for her share. In the alternative, the parties can defer the sharing of the improvements pending a decision on the fate of the farm. If the farm is to be in the hands of one party, then he or she must compensate the other for his/her share of the improvements. If the farm is divided, then the party on whose portion the improvements fall must compensate the other. MOVABLE ASSETS Household items The parties agreed that the Plaintiff be awarded a bed, stove, wardrobe coffee table, television and refrigerator at Matovanyika Farm, Plot 10/11 Robsdale Makonde. They also agreed that the Defendant be awarded the movable assets at the matrimonial home, No 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara, Harare. Farm Equipment The Plaintiff stated in his replication that some of the equipment listed by the Defendant was hired or leased for use at the farm. However, nothing further was submitted to substantiate that allegation. No equipment was identified as either having been hired or leased. The Plaintiff also stated that some of the equipment was functional while some are broken down. In response Defendant stated that she would accept whatever is awarded to her even if it requires repair. Considering that the Plaintiff’s source of income is farming, his share will include the functional equipment where there is functional and broken-down equipment. I am of the view that the parties are entitled to an equal share of the farm equipment. Where there is only one item, it should be valued and shared equally between the parties. All the equipment in even numbers are to be shared equally between the parties. Where the equipment is in odd numbers, the remainder after dividing by two will be valued and the value shared equally between the parties. The Plaintiff, as the person who was doing most of the farming, will have the option to buy out the Defendant’s share. DISPOSITION IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT A decree of divorce be and is hereby granted.Stand number 518 Athlone Township otherwise known as No. 2 Barrie Road Athlone, Greendale, Harare be and is hereby awarded to the Plaintiff.Stand 607 Mandara Township otherwise known as No. 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara, Harare be and is hereby awarded to the Defendant.Defendant shall bear the costs of transferring stand 607 Mandara Township, Harare into her name IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT The Plaintiff be and is hereby ordered to clear all the debts causing the encumbrance in relation to stand 607 Mandara Township Harare within thirty days of the granting of this order failing which all the debts in question shall be transferred to stand 518 Athlone Township, otherwise known as No. 2 Barrie Road, Athlore, Greendale, Harare.The Plaintiff be and is hereby ordered to surrender the original Title Deed for stand 607 Mandara Township otherwise known as 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara Harare to the Defendant’s Legal Practitioners and sign all the necessary papers effecting transfer of Stand 607 Mandara Township, otherwise known as 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara, Harare into the Defendant’s name within sixty days of the granting of this order failing which the Sheriff of the High Court, or his lawful deputy, shall be authorized to sign such papers as may be necessary in effecting the transfer. The Plaintiff be and is hereby awarded a bed, stove wardrobe, coffee table, television and refrigerator at Matovanyika Farm, Plot 10/11 Robsdale Makonde. The Defendant be and is hereby awarded all the movable property at the matrimonial home No 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara, Harare.Each party be and is hereby awarded 50% of the value of all the improvements on Matovanyika Farm Plot 10/11 Robsdale, Makonde.Each party be and is hereby awarded 50% of the equipment on Matovanyika Farm, Plot 10/11 Robsdale, Makonde.Where the equipment is in odd numbers, the remainder after dividing by two shall be valued and shared equally.The parties shall agree on the value of the improvements and the equipment to be shared failing which they will appoint a valuer within seven days of failing to agree.If the parties fail agree on a valuer, one shall be appointed by the Registrar of the High Court from the list of registered valuers.The Plaintiff shall have the option to buy out the Defendant’s share within thirty-days of receipt of the valuation report or such other time as agreed by the parties.In the event that Plaintiff fails to buy out of Defendant’s share, the property shall be sold to best advantage and the net proceeds shared equally between the parties.The cost of the valuations shall be shared equally by the parties.Each party shall bear its own costs of suit. Samukange Hungwe Attorneys, Plaintiff’s legal practitioners Rufu-Makoni Legal Practitioners, Defendant’s legal practitioners 4 HH 274-25 HCH 6637/23 4 HH 274-25 HCH 6637/23 RICHARD JENAMI versus CONSILIA JENAMI (NEE POTE) HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAXWELL J HARARE, 11 February 2025 & 25 April 2025 Trial E R Samkange, for the Plaintiff L Rufu, for the Defendant MAXWELL J: The Plaintiff and the Defendant were married in terms of the then Marriage Act [Chapter 37] now the Marriages Act [Chapter 5:17] on the 9th of April 1987. The union was blessed with two children who are now majors. On 12 October 2023 Plaintiff issued out summons claiming a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. He stated in the declaration that the parties have developed irreconcilable differences inconsistent with a normal marriage relationship. He further stated that during the subsistence of the marriage the parties acquired two immovable properties and several movable properties. He also stated that he is leasing a farm in Mhangura from the Ministry of National Security, Lands, Land Refarm and Resettlement. He proposed the distribution of the movable and immovable property between them. Defendant gave notice of entering appearance to defend. She stated in her plea that the parties were blessed with three children, not two as stated by Plaintiff. She indicated that Plaintiff had not listed all the property acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. She listed the property and proposed its distribution. In answer, the Plaintiff stated that the additional property listed by the Defendant is not part of the matrimonial estate as it is either hired or leased to him for use on the farm. Pleadings were exchanged and a Pre-Trial conference was held. The issue referred to trial was whether the property listed by the Defendant constituted the parties matrimonial property, and if so, what is the equitable distribution thereof. The trial commenced with the Plaintiff testifying. His evidence was as follows. He was on diplomatic postings for 19 years. During the postings they acquired both movable and immovable property. The matrimonial home is in Mandara. He is now residing at Matovanyika Farm Plot Number 10/11 Robsdale Mhangura which he got under the land reform programme. He noticed very late that he was living a loveless life and decided to quit the marriage. When he advised the Defendant of that decision in 2023, he was chased away from the matrimonial home. During the subsistence of the marriage, the parties bought movable assets for the farm and the matrimonial home. In his view the farm equipment should not be distributed as that would cripple the farming activities which are his sole source of income. In addition 15 families would be affected if the farming activities ceased. Under cross examination he indicated that he was posted to four countries during his diplomatic career, South Africa, Algeria, India and Australia. Defendant was not allowed to work and would be a housewife. She only worked once in Austria on part time basis teaching at Vienna International School. He confirmed that three children had been born out of their union but one was deceased. He confirmed that the farm was allocated to them as a family but argued that Defendant as a teacher has another source of income whilst he relies on the farm. He confirmed that the parties agreed that he gets the immovable property in Greendale whilst Defendant gets the matrimonial home in Mandara. He was willing to compensate Defendant for what the court would rule to be due to her on the farm equipment. That was Plaintiff’s evidence. Defendant testified as follows. She was married to the Plaintiff traditionally in 1986 and then at court in 1987. She has been a teacher since 1986. She would leave her job to be with Plaintiff on his diplomatic postings. Plaintiff had advised her that he was not allowed to go alone whenever he was posted out of the country. Whenever they came back to live in Zimbabwe, she would be reinstated to her job with the assistance of Plaintiff’s employer. After the Austria posting in 2009 the law changed and she had to look for employment herself. She got a job in 2010 and has been employed since then. Their incomes were used jointly towards household and living expensed. On 02 September 2023 she was surprised that Plaintiff had brought his relatives and was called for a family gathering leading to their separation. She indicated that they were allocated the farm as virgin land. They pooled resources and engaged in farming together. She indicated that she wanted to continue farming after divorce. In her view she is entitled to 50% of the farm equipment. She indicated that she was responsible for the construction of accommodation for workers and a tuckshop. Under cross examination she confirmed that Plaintiff’s only source of income at the time of trial was farming. She was not willing to accept money in lieu of her share of equipment. That was the Defendant’s case. THE LAW Section 7(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act [chapter 5:13] regulates the division, appointment and distribution of assets of the spouses on dissolution of marriage. Section 7(4) of the same Act sets out factors which the court must have regard to in dividing, distributing and apportioning the assets of the spouses. These are; The income earning capacity and assets and other financial reserves which each spouse and child is likely to have in the foreseeable future. The financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each spouse and child has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future. 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. The physical and mental condition of each spouse and child. 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. 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. The Act further directs that in distributing apportioning and dividing the assets of the spouses, the court shall endeavor as far as is reasonable and practicable, and having regard to the conduct of the parties, where it is just to do so, place the spouse and child in the position they would have been in had a normal marriage relationship continued between the spouses. The distribution will therefore be considered in the light of the above. PLANTIFF’S REASONS AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMING EQUIPMENT Plaintiff proffered three reasons why he should be declared the sole owner of the farming equipment. Each of the reasons is considered below. That he solely acquired the farm equipment. Plaintiff’s argument was that at the time he was posted on diplomatic missions, Defendant was not allowed to work and therefore did not contribute financially to the acquisition of the assets. That argument runs foul of the established position in our law that a wife’s indirect contribution cannot be quantified in monetary terms. See Usayi v Usayi 2003 (1) ZLR 168. The reason Defendant was not working was to support the Plaintiff’s career. Plaintiff did not dispute the submission by the Defendant that he advised her that he was not allowed to go to a diplomatic mission alone. Defendant therefore contributed in a significant way to the Plaintiff’s being on diplomatic missions. Moreover, in Mufunani v Mufunani HH 32/16 it was stated that the value of indirect contribution increases with the length of time. See also Manavira v Manavira HH 803/16. The parties have been married for thirty-seven years. I am not persuaded that there is any justification regarding the Defendants’ contribution as insignificant to be disregarded. The significance of the sacrifice she made to support the Plaintiff’s career should not be downplayed. In any event it was common cause that Defendant worked on a parttime basis in Austria and that whenever they were back in Zimbabwe in between postings, Defendant would resume her employment, and her income was utilized for the good of the family. The Defendant is therefore entitled to a share of the farm equipment. That some of the farm equipment like pivots are not capable of being divided. The Plaintiff argued that it was not possible to dismantle and share some of the farm equipment like the centre pivot. To the contrary Defendant argued that there are two center pivots. There was no authority submitted in support of the submission that property that cannot be divided cannot be shared. If that were the position, none of the matrimonial homes would be shared. It is a common practice that where property is indivisible, it is valued and each party gets a share of the value with the option to buy the other out. There is no reason why that approach cannot be adopted in this case. The farm equipment that cannot be divided must be valued and each party apportioned a share. (3) That disturbing the farm equipment will cripple the farming activities being carried out at the farm. Plaintiff argued that distributing the farm equipment will destroy the livelihood of fifteen families and his sole source of income. That submission is a denial of the fact that divorce had consequences that are disruptive to an established way of life. What is fair and just in any given case may result in negative consequences for one party or for both. At the institution of divorce proceedings parties should anticipate a disruption of the established routine of their life. There is no justification for not distributing any asset of the spouses on the basis that farming activities will be crippled. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS OF THE SPOUSES IMMOVABLES As stated above the parties are agreed that each of them gets a house in Harare. It remained unresolved as to whether there is an encumbrance on stand 607 Mandara Township, Harare. The parties agreed that the Plaintiff has the responsibility of clearing all the debts causing the encumbrance. Despite the submission that all the debts were cleared, there was no proof tendered to that effect. Provision will therefore be made for the Plaintiff to clear the debts and avail the title deeds to the Defendant. The determination of the parties rights in relation to Matovanyika Farm, Plot Number 10/11 Robsdale Mhangura is in the purview of the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development. Defendant testified that she was advised that the land would be divided between them after a decree of divorce is granted. In Teejay Sibanda v Hilda SC 7/14 it was stated that the improvements on a farm belong to the parties separately and distinctly from the land on which they are located, and should therefore be subjected to apportionment between the parties on the same principle of law as applies to their other assets. The Defendant listed the improvements to include a bar, shop, grinding mill, foul run, canteen, round kitchen and workers houses. Defendant’s evidence was that the houses are on one side of the farm. The parties have an option to have the improvements evaluated and Defendant be compensated for her share. In the alternative, the parties can defer the sharing of the improvements pending a decision on the fate of the farm. If the farm is to be in the hands of one party, then he or she must compensate the other for his/her share of the improvements. If the farm is divided, then the party on whose portion the improvements fall must compensate the other. MOVABLE ASSETS Household items The parties agreed that the Plaintiff be awarded a bed, stove, wardrobe coffee table, television and refrigerator at Matovanyika Farm, Plot 10/11 Robsdale Makonde. They also agreed that the Defendant be awarded the movable assets at the matrimonial home, No 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara, Harare. Farm Equipment The Plaintiff stated in his replication that some of the equipment listed by the Defendant was hired or leased for use at the farm. However, nothing further was submitted to substantiate that allegation. No equipment was identified as either having been hired or leased. The Plaintiff also stated that some of the equipment was functional while some are broken down. In response Defendant stated that she would accept whatever is awarded to her even if it requires repair. Considering that the Plaintiff’s source of income is farming, his share will include the functional equipment where there is functional and broken-down equipment. I am of the view that the parties are entitled to an equal share of the farm equipment. Where there is only one item, it should be valued and shared equally between the parties. All the equipment in even numbers are to be shared equally between the parties. Where the equipment is in odd numbers, the remainder after dividing by two will be valued and the value shared equally between the parties. The Plaintiff, as the person who was doing most of the farming, will have the option to buy out the Defendant’s share. DISPOSITION IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT A decree of divorce be and is hereby granted. Stand number 518 Athlone Township otherwise known as No. 2 Barrie Road Athlone, Greendale, Harare be and is hereby awarded to the Plaintiff. Stand 607 Mandara Township otherwise known as No. 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara, Harare be and is hereby awarded to the Defendant. Defendant shall bear the costs of transferring stand 607 Mandara Township, Harare into her name IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT The Plaintiff be and is hereby ordered to clear all the debts causing the encumbrance in relation to stand 607 Mandara Township Harare within thirty days of the granting of this order failing which all the debts in question shall be transferred to stand 518 Athlone Township, otherwise known as No. 2 Barrie Road, Athlore, Greendale, Harare. The Plaintiff be and is hereby ordered to surrender the original Title Deed for stand 607 Mandara Township otherwise known as 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara Harare to the Defendant’s Legal Practitioners and sign all the necessary papers effecting transfer of Stand 607 Mandara Township, otherwise known as 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara, Harare into the Defendant’s name within sixty days of the granting of this order failing which the Sheriff of the High Court, or his lawful deputy, shall be authorized to sign such papers as may be necessary in effecting the transfer. The Plaintiff be and is hereby awarded a bed, stove wardrobe, coffee table, television and refrigerator at Matovanyika Farm, Plot 10/11 Robsdale Makonde. The Defendant be and is hereby awarded all the movable property at the matrimonial home No 6 Tiptol Close, Mandara, Harare. Each party be and is hereby awarded 50% of the value of all the improvements on Matovanyika Farm Plot 10/11 Robsdale, Makonde. Each party be and is hereby awarded 50% of the equipment on Matovanyika Farm, Plot 10/11 Robsdale, Makonde. Where the equipment is in odd numbers, the remainder after dividing by two shall be valued and shared equally. The parties shall agree on the value of the improvements and the equipment to be shared failing which they will appoint a valuer within seven days of failing to agree. If the parties fail agree on a valuer, one shall be appointed by the Registrar of the High Court from the list of registered valuers. The Plaintiff shall have the option to buy out the Defendant’s share within thirty-days of receipt of the valuation report or such other time as agreed by the parties. In the event that Plaintiff fails to buy out of Defendant’s share, the property shall be sold to best advantage and the net proceeds shared equally between the parties. The cost of the valuations shall be shared equally by the parties. Each party shall bear its own costs of suit. Samukange Hungwe Attorneys, Plaintiff’s legal practitioners Rufu-Makoni Legal Practitioners, Defendant’s legal practitioners