The appellant and respondent purportedly married in terms of the African Marriages Act on 4 June 1989. Their marriage was subsequently nullified by the High Court on 19 October 2011 in case number 5028/10 on the basis that at the time the appellant married the respondent, he was already married to another woman (Rosaria Manjala) in terms of the Marriage Act. The respondent was unaware of the appellant's prior marriage for approximately 20 years. Following nullification, the appellant instituted proceedings seeking distribution of property accumulated during the marriage. The properties in dispute were: (1) No. 13 Neasden Avenue, Bradfield, Bulawayo (acquired by respondent before the marriage), and (2) No. 3A Helena Road, Marlborough, Harare. During the marriage, the respondent was employed by the Zimbabwean embassy in Ethiopia and Belgium for seven years while the appellant was unemployed and performed domestic chores. The respondent contributed substantially to the acquisition and maintenance of the properties through her employment income.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The order of the High Court dated 6 June 2013 was upheld, which awarded: (1) No. 13 Neasden Avenue, Bradfield, Bulawayo to the respondent as her sole and exclusive property; (2) A 70% share of No. 3A Helena Road, Marlborough, Harare to the respondent; (3) A 30% share of No. 3A Helena Road, Marlborough, Harare to the appellant; and (4) The respondent was granted the option to buy out the appellant's 30% share in the Marlborough property.
1. A putative marriage arises where a marriage is an apparent marriage which, but for some impediment, would be valid but which one or both parties, ignorant of the impediment, believed to be valid. 2. Section 7(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act applies to marriages which are a nullity, requiring courts to distribute property in a manner that is just and equitable. 3. In distributing matrimonial property, courts must apply the 'his', 'hers' and 'theirs' principle as set out in Takafuma v Takafuma, sorting property into three categories and apportioning the joint property using the criteria in section 7(3) of the Act. 4. Where a litigant gives false evidence on material matters, the court may disbelieve his entire testimony and draw adverse inferences. 5. An appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact or the exercise of judicial discretion by a trial court unless the findings are so irrational and outrageous in their defiance of logic that no sensible person could have arrived at such a conclusion. 6. Courts must consider the actual contributions (both financial and non-financial) of each party when distributing property, and may depart from an equal division where justified by the circumstances and conduct of the parties.
The Court made observations about the conduct of the appellant in deceiving the respondent about his marital status for 20 years, noting that such deceitful conduct should not be ignored when exercising discretion in property distribution. The Court also commented on the fact that during the seven years the parties lived in Belgium and Ethiopia, the respondent provided for the family while the appellant was unemployed and performed domestic duties, and that the appellant did not complain about any ill-treatment during this period. The judgment implicitly suggests that courts should take a holistic view of the parties' relationship and contributions when determining what is just and equitable in property distribution.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean matrimonial law as it clarifies the application of section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act to putative marriages (marriages that are nullities). It reinforces the principle that where one party to a marriage was unaware of an impediment (such as a prior subsisting marriage), the innocent party is entitled to protection under the Act. The case illustrates the wide judicial discretion afforded to courts in distributing matrimonial assets and emphasizes that such discretion must be exercised judicially, taking into account the respective contributions of each party. It also demonstrates the importance of credibility findings and how dishonesty by a party can adversely affect their claim. The case reinforces the 'his', 'hers' and 'theirs' principle in property distribution and confirms that appellate courts will only interfere with discretionary decisions and findings of fact in limited circumstances.