The appellant and respondent cohabited from September 1996 to March 2004 without any marriage, customary or otherwise. The respondent had misled the appellant into believing she was not married, when in fact she was married to one Govati Mhora since 1993 in terms of the Marriages Act, which marriage was only dissolved on 5 November 2004. There was no customary union between the parties - no lobola was paid and no customary procedures were observed. The parties had one minor child born in April 2001. After their cohabitation ended in 2004 and the respondent refused to move out of the house in Ruwa, Harare, the appellant issued summons in the Magistrates Court seeking distribution of their property. The Magistrate granted an order distributing various properties between the parties, including awarding the respondent a Honda motor vehicle, a computer, and a 35% share in Stand 5579, Zimre Park, Ruwa. The appellant appealed this decision.
The appeal succeeded. The proceedings in the court a quo were set aside in their entirety.
The Magistrates Court, being a creature of statute, has no jurisdiction beyond that granted by statute and possesses no inherent jurisdiction. In terms of section 11(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act, the court only has jurisdiction to distribute assets in cases involving marriages solemnized in terms of the Customary Marriages Act or other recognized marriages. Where parties have merely cohabited without any form of recognized marriage (customary or civil), and no valid cause of action is pleaded that falls within the statutory jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim for distribution of property. In the absence of a customary union or any recognized marriage, the Magistrates Court must decline to deal with the matter for want of jurisdiction and absence of a cause of action.
The Court noted that the entire appeal was not properly thought out before, during, and after it was filed. The appellant's lawyers were confused regarding the issue of jurisdiction, as they had approached the court seeking distribution of property but later argued against jurisdiction when it was raised by the respondent, resulting in self-contradiction. The Court observed that the learned Magistrate failed to properly address the jurisdictional issue despite it being pleaded and raised in court, simply ordering that the matter continue without giving reasons. The Court also referenced the observation in Mashingaidze v Mugemba that while there may be policy arguments for treating proven unregistered customary law unions like marriages when it comes to dissolution and division of assets, such a view is currently not supported by the law.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it clarifies the jurisdictional limits of the Magistrates Court in matters involving cohabitation without marriage. It establishes that the Magistrates Court has no jurisdiction to distribute property between parties who merely cohabited without any form of recognized marriage (customary or civil). The case reinforces the principle that Magistrates Courts are creatures of statute with no inherent jurisdiction, and can only exercise powers expressly granted by statute. It also highlights the legal vacuum regarding the rights of cohabiting parties who are not married, noting that while there may be policy arguments for treating proven unregistered customary unions similarly to marriages, such a view is not currently supported by the law. The case serves as authority that in the absence of a valid cause of action within the statutory jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court, the court must decline to hear the matter.