Alvin Crisp v Stella Mary Masvikeni

The parties married in 1981 and had four adult children. They separated in 1987 when the plaintiff left the matrimonial home. The defendant has been living in the United Kingdom since 1999, along with all their children. The plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings, and the defendant counter-claimed for divorce and ancillary relief including arrear maintenance. Both parties agreed the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The disputed issues were the division of the matrimonial estate, which comprised: lot 1 of Lot 75 Chisipite (number 9 Harare Drive, Chisipite), stand number 3471 Warren Park, stand number 11817 (number 16 Maruta Crescent, Beatrice Road Cottages, Mbare), Lot 3 of 99 Block C of Hatfield Estate, and two business entities - Crovis Agencies (Private) Limited and Selfast Industries (Private) Limited. The plaintiff initially claimed number 9 Harare Drive as his sole property but later conceded his half share to the defendant, as well as his half shares in the Warren Park and Beatrice Road properties. The defendant claimed arrear maintenance for two children and sought an accounting for rentals from the Chisipite property.

• Whether the defendant should be awarded shares in Crovis Agencies (Private) Limited and Selfast Industries (Private) Limited
• Whether an amendment to the counter-claim to introduce plaintiff's marital misconduct should be allowed out of time
• Whether the corporate veil of Selfast Industries (Private) Limited should be pierced to include it in the matrimonial estate
• Whether the defendant was entitled to arrear maintenance for the children
• Whether the plaintiff should account for rentals from the Chisipite property
• How to apply Section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act [Chapter 5:13] in distributing the matrimonial estate

1. A decree of divorce was granted. 2. Plaintiff awarded Lot 3 of Lot 99 Block C of Hatfield as his sole property. 3. Plaintiff awarded 85% of Selfast Industries (Private) Limited trading as Mega Bricks. 4. Within two months, plaintiff to transfer his 50% share in lot 1 of Lot 75 Chisipite (number 9 Harare Drive), stand number 3471 Warren Park, and stand number 11817 (number 16 Maruta Crescent, Beatrice Road Cottages, Mbare) to defendant. 5. Within two months, plaintiff to pay defendant 15% of the value of Selfast Industries (Private) Limited. 6. Counter-claim for arrear maintenance dismissed. 7. Counter-claim for accounting of rent for Chisipite property dismissed. 8. Each party to bear their own costs.

1. Under Section 7(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act [Chapter 5:13], courts have wide discretion to distribute "assets of the spouses", not merely matrimonial assets, which can include assets acquired post-separation. 2. The corporate veil may be pierced in matrimonial proceedings where a company is effectively the alter ego of one spouse, following the principle in Masiyiwa Cleopas Gonye v Stella Maris Gonye SC 15/09. 3. When distributing matrimonial property, courts must apply the three-stage approach from Takafuma v Takafuma 1994 (2) ZLR 103: (a) sorting property into "his", "hers", and "theirs"; (b) apportioning the joint property using Section 7(3) criteria; and (c) reviewing the overall result to place spouses in the position they would have been in had a normal marriage relationship continued. 4. A party claiming arrear maintenance must prove the claim with specific evidence of amounts, periods, and when children became self-supporting.

The court noted that evidence regarding the plaintiff's alleged marital misconduct in deserting the family would have been disregarded in any event, as the parties had agreed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The court also observed that while the Chisipite property may be more valuable than the Hatfield property by virtue of its location, this was balanced by the overall distribution which gave the defendant the bulk of the immovable properties. The court commented that had a normal marriage relationship continued, the defendant would have benefited from Selfast Industries (Private) Limited, but this was tempered by her lack of contribution to the business and her receipt of substantial immovable property.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean family law for its application of the principle of piercing the corporate veil in matrimonial property distribution. It clarifies that Section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act refers to "assets of the spouses" rather than merely "matrimonial assets", giving courts wide discretion to include assets acquired post-separation where one spouse controls a company as their alter ego. The judgment demonstrates the court's approach to balancing contributions and ensuring fairness when distributing assets accumulated during separation, while also reinforcing procedural requirements for amendments and the burden of proof in maintenance claims. It illustrates the practical application of the Takafuma three-stage approach to property distribution in divorce proceedings.