Marvel Karimbika (nee Ncube) v Abraham Karimbika

The parties married on 27 April 2013 under the Marriage Act. No children were born of the marriage. Throughout the marriage, the parties lived and worked in separate towns - the plaintiff worked in Mutare then Kadoma for Standard Chartered Bank as a Customer Due Diligence Analyst, while the defendant worked in Harare for the Ministry of Justice as a clerk. They would visit each other on weekends. The plaintiff obtained a protection order against the defendant in October 2017, after which they stopped seeing each other. The plaintiff then instituted divorce proceedings. The parties agreed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Two issues went to trial: distribution of matrimonial property and whether the defendant could claim post-divorce maintenance. The plaintiff claimed she paid her own bride price ($4,700 loaned to defendant), funded the wedding preparations alone (approximately $15,000), and purchased all matrimonial property during the marriage using her own funds, bank loans, performance bonuses and educational refunds. The defendant claimed he contributed to wedding costs and that wedding gifts of $10,000 were used to purchase property. The defendant earned a net salary of $111 per month while the plaintiff earned $754 per month.

• How should matrimonial property be distributed between the parties upon divorce?
• Whether the defendant husband is entitled to post-divorce maintenance from the plaintiff wife?
• What weight should be given to respective contributions of spouses in acquiring matrimonial property?
• Whether an employed spouse can claim post-divorce maintenance from the other spouse?

1. A decree of divorce was granted. 2. The plaintiff was awarded: Stand 3492 Dulibadzimu Beitbridge; Nissan Teana; dish washing machine; 1 double bed; king size bed; 1 lounge suite; DSTV explorer; 46 inch television; 1 microwave; 1 electric pan; generator; headboard; industrial fan; upright fridge; 4 plate stove; dressing table; kitchen utensils. 3. The defendant was awarded: Stand in Damafalls Ruwa; VW Bora; clothes washing machine; 1 double bed; coffee table with 4 stools; DSTV decoder; 1 electric pan; 1 heater; gas tank; LG TV; gas stove. 4. The plaintiff must sign transfer papers for the VW Bora upon defendant paying transfer costs, failing which the sheriff may sign. 5. The defendant's claim for maintenance was dismissed. 6. Each party to bear own costs.

In distributing matrimonial property under section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, courts must consider the actual contributions made by each spouse towards acquisition of property, both direct and indirect. Where one spouse has made substantially all financial contributions towards acquiring matrimonial property and the other spouse has contributed little or nothing, an equal distribution is not warranted - the distribution must be fair and equitable based on actual contributions. Post-divorce maintenance is not granted as of right to an employed spouse, particularly where the marriage was of short duration, parties lived separately throughout the marriage maintaining separate households, and the claimant spouse made no meaningful contributions during the marriage. The credibility of parties and their conduct during the marriage are material considerations in determining both property distribution and maintenance claims.

The court made observations about the defendant's dishonest conduct throughout the marriage, noting he was "a person who lies without effort" and that "telling lies comes more naturally to him than telling the truth." The court observed this may be "a personality disorder or if he does it calculatedly for personal gain" or "a combination of both." The court noted the defendant "married her for financial gain and nothing more" and described the marriage as "not based on true love" but rather the defendant viewing marriage to the plaintiff as "his ticket to a very good and pampered life." The court commented that the defendant "cannot have his cake and eat it" and "cannot expect to reap from where he did not sow." These observations, while influencing the court's assessment of credibility, go beyond the strict legal principles required for the decision.

This case illustrates the application of section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act in Zimbabwean law regarding distribution of matrimonial property upon divorce. It demonstrates that courts will consider actual contributions made by each spouse in acquiring property, and that dishonesty and lack of financial contribution during marriage will affect distribution outcomes. The case reinforces the principle established in Chiomba v Chiomba, Rabvukwa v Rabvukwa and Mhlanga v Mhlanga that post-divorce maintenance for an employed spouse is not automatically granted and is no longer justifiable in modern matrimonial law. The judgment emphasizes that courts must achieve fair and equitable distribution based on actual contributions rather than mathematical equality, and that conduct during marriage is a relevant consideration. It also highlights the importance of credibility of witnesses in matrimonial disputes where financial contributions are contested.