Following a grant of a decree of divorce, the High Court divided matrimonial property between the parties. The appellant wife appealed against part of this judgment, focusing on two main issues: (1) the award of a property known as the Aspen Flat to the respondent husband as compensation for his half share in the Knightsbridge account (a joint account containing 10,000 pounds sterling), and (2) the award of a non-existent property referred to as Des Vegas to the appellant. The trial court found that the appellant had denied the Knightsbridge account was a joint account (later conceded) and had prevaricated about whether the funds still existed, leading the court to believe she sought to place the funds beyond the respondent's reach.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The High Court's division of matrimonial property was upheld, including the award of the Aspen Flat to the respondent and the award of any existing rights in Des Vegas to the appellant.
When dividing matrimonial property following divorce, a court has discretion to award property in specie to one party as compensation for their share in jointly-held funds, rather than ordering direct payment, particularly where there are enforcement difficulties and where the other party has attempted to mislead the court and place assets beyond reach. The exercise of such discretion will not constitute a misdirection provided it is properly exercised taking into account the circumstances of the case. Where property of uncertain status forms part of the matrimonial estate, a court may award whatever rights may exist in that property to a party, leaving them to pursue any available remedies.
The court observed that the appellant's attempt to offer payment of 10,000 pounds sterling at the appeal stage in order to be awarded the Aspen Flat could not be entertained. The court also commented that by awarding the appellant rights in Des Vegas, it was effectively saying that the appellant could pursue the matter if she wished in order to exercise any rights or cause of action that may have been in existence.
This Zimbabwean Supreme Court case demonstrates the broad discretion courts have in dividing matrimonial property following divorce, particularly where one party has attempted to mislead the court or place assets beyond the other party's reach. It affirms that courts may award property in lieu of monetary compensation where enforcement difficulties exist, and that a party's dishonest conduct during proceedings may influence the court's exercise of discretion in property division. The case also illustrates how courts may deal with uncertain property interests in matrimonial property division by awarding whatever rights may exist.