Jenepher Murahwa v Ngoni Bhamu

The plaintiff and defendant lived together in an unregistered customary union from 1996 and had two children born in 1997 and 2002. During their union, they engaged in market gardening, trading, and various business ventures. In November 1998, they acquired Stand 6536 Westlea, Harare, which was registered in the defendant's name. The plaintiff claimed she contributed to the acquisition and development of the property through their joint trading activities, including market gardening, cross-border trading in Mozambique, and dressmaking. They built a four-roomed cottage on the stand and moved there in 1999, later constructing a main house which was habitable by 2003. The parties separated in 2013. The plaintiff sought a 50% share of the property based on the existence of a tacit universal partnership. The defendant denied the plaintiff's contributions and claimed they separated in 2001 before the stand was developed, and that he funded everything through his company.

• Whether a valid customary union existed between the parties
• Whether a tacit universal partnership existed between the plaintiff and defendant during their customary union
• Whether the plaintiff contributed directly or indirectly to the acquisition and development of Stand 6536 Westlea
• When the parties separated and whether the property was developed during the subsistence of the union
• Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share of the immovable property and what percentage

1. A tacit universal partnership was declared to have existed between the parties during their customary union. 2. The union was declared terminated in 2013 when the parties separated. 3. The plaintiff was awarded a 50% share in Stand 6536 Westlea, Harare and all its improvements. 4. The parties were ordered to agree on a professional evaluator within seven days, failing which the High Court Registrar would appoint one. 5. Each party to bear 50% of valuation costs. 6. Either party given option to buy out the other within one week after valuation. 7. Failing buy-out agreement, the property to be sold on the market within three weeks. 8. Defendant to sign all necessary transfer documents within reasonable time. 9. If defendant fails to sign, the Sheriff or authorized representative to sign transfer documents. 10. Defendant to pay costs of suit.

Where parties live in an unregistered customary union and engage in joint economic activities for their mutual benefit, a tacit universal partnership may be established. For such partnership to exist, each party must contribute something (whether capital, labor, or skills), the business must be for joint benefit, and the objective must be to make profit through lawful means. A partner in such a tacit universal partnership is entitled to a share of property acquired during the union, regardless of whose name the property is registered in, where the partner can prove contribution either directly through income-generating activities or indirectly through domestic duties and supervision of developments. The court will assess contribution holistically, including market gardening, trading activities, domestic labor, and supervising construction. Documentary evidence such as birth certificates, bank records, and property acquisition documents are crucial in determining the timeline of the relationship and contributions made.

The court made observations about the practice of low-income people completing finishing touches to their houses while already living in them, noting this is common in cases that come before the courts involving construction of properties. The court also commented that plaintiffs are bound by their claims in summons and cannot smuggle in additional claims (such as maintenance for a minor child) through closing submissions - such claims must be pursued through the appropriate forum (the maintenance court). The court showed contempt for the defendant's explanation that the plaintiff learned about the interior of the house from someone telling her or from observing outside the yard, dismissing this explanation "with the contempt it deserves."

This case is significant in Zimbabwean family law and property law as it affirms the recognition of tacit universal partnerships arising from unregistered customary unions. It demonstrates the courts' willingness to protect the property rights of women in customary unions who contribute both directly (through income-generating activities) and indirectly (through domestic duties and supervising construction) to the acquisition of family assets. The judgment reinforces that formal registration of property in one party's name does not defeat the other partner's claim where a universal partnership is established. The case also emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence in proving sources of income, and shows that bare assertions without supporting documentation will be rejected. It provides guidance on how courts assess credibility when testimonies conflict, particularly by reference to objective documentary evidence such as birth certificates and bank records.