The parties married in November 1982. The respondent was an ex-combatant receiving a disability pension from the War Victims Compensation Fund. During the marriage they acquired three immovable properties: a Warren Park house (sold in 1999), a Ruwa house (registered in the respondent's name), and a Msasa Park house (registered in joint names). The respondent received substantial sums from the Fund ($15,000 in 1993, $50,000 in 1987, $97,000 and $66,000 in 1995 after commuting her pension) which she used to purchase and develop these properties. She paid a $7,000 deposit for Ruwa and $95,000 in deposits for Msasa Park (purchase price $150,000). The appellant defaulted on mortgage payments, and the respondent paid $70,000 from the Warren Park sale proceeds to prevent foreclosure. The minor child had attained majority by trial, and the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The High Court order stood: a decree of divorce was granted; the Msasa Park property was awarded to the respondent; the Ruwa property was to be sold with net proceeds shared equally; and movable property was divided with the appellant receiving the Ford Laser, half the lounge suite, double bed and headboard, dressing table and wardrobe, while the respondent received all other movable property including cattle.
Money received by a spouse from the War Victims Compensation Fund as a disabled ex-combatant should be treated in the same manner as an inheritance when dividing matrimonial property upon divorce, and should be excluded from assets to be apportioned equally. The spouse who received such funds must be given credit for the moneys brought into the marriage from the Fund when determining a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets. An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's findings of fact based on credibility of witnesses unless there is misdirection, mistake of fact, or the basis of the decision was wrong.
The Court noted that it would be more convenient and economic for the respondent, a disabled person, to continue living in the Msasa Park house (the matrimonial home) with her son, which supported awarding that property to her exclusively. The Court observed that the respondent's evidence 'reads well and accords with the probabilities of the matter' while the same could not be said of the appellant's evidence, though this was not strictly necessary for the decision given the deference to the trial court's credibility findings.
This case establishes important principles in Zimbabwean matrimonial property law regarding the treatment of funds received by a spouse from the War Victims Compensation Fund in divorce proceedings. It affirms that such funds should be treated analogously to an inheritance and excluded from equal division, with the receiving spouse being given credit for those contributions. The case also illustrates the court's broad discretion in achieving just and equitable division of matrimonial assets, considering factors such as actual contributions, convenience, and economic realities rather than applying rigid formulae.