This was an inquiry ordered by the Supreme Court on 23 January 2018 into allegations that the respondent (Ronald John Coumbis) had defied and conducted himself in a manner calculated to defeat a High Court judgment dated 4 September 2014 in divorce proceedings. The appellant (Philippa Ann Coumbis) alleged multiple violations including: removal of their perpetual minor child Julian to South Africa in 2013 without consent, preventing access rights; dissipation of matrimonial assets including sale of two South African properties (No. 94 and No. 112 Matumi Sands); removal of all movable household goods awarded to the appellant to South Africa; transfer of USD$2.8 million from Stir Crazy (Pvt) Ltd to Incavat Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd; failure to remove encumbrances on properties; seizure of a motor vehicle (Nissan Navara) by the Vehicle Theft Squad for alleged smuggling; and complete non-payment of maintenance awarded to the appellant. The respondent did not attend the inquiry or give viva voce evidence, effectively leaving the appellant's evidence uncontroverted.
The court made detailed findings of fact as directed by the Supreme Court and ordered that the Registrar of the High Court immediately forward the proceedings and findings to the Registrar of the Supreme Court for further determination. The inquiry confirmed substantial non-compliance by the respondent with the High Court's order of 4 September 2014.
Where the Supreme Court remits allegations of non-compliance with a High Court order back to the High Court for factual inquiry, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear viva voce evidence and consider documentary evidence to make findings of fact. Where a party fails to give evidence at such an inquiry, uncontroverted evidence from the other party may be accepted by the court. The removal of a minor child from the jurisdiction without consent and in defiance of access orders, coupled with dissipation of matrimonial assets subject to court orders, constitutes conduct calculated to defeat the judgment of the court. A court conducting such an inquiry must make comprehensive findings of fact for the Supreme Court's consideration but should not make determinations on final relief, which remains the province of the appellate court.
Mawadze J observed that the matter had taken an emotional toll on the appellant, noting she constantly broke down while giving evidence. The judge mentioned in passing that the Judge President was apprised at all material times of the challenges the court faced in convening the inquiry. The court noted its impression from previous aborted hearings and the totality of evidence that the respondent was not in Zimbabwe. The court also remarked it was not concerned about what award the Supreme Court may or may not make as 'that is food to be digested by the Supreme Court', indicating the limited scope of the inquiry function.
This case demonstrates the Zimbabwe courts' approach to enforcing matrimonial property and access orders where one party has deliberately frustrated court orders through removal of assets and children from the jurisdiction. It illustrates the Supreme Court's supervisory role in directing factual inquiries where compliance with court orders is disputed, and establishes procedures for remitting matters to the High Court for fact-finding before final determination on appeal. The case highlights challenges in enforcing cross-border family law orders, particularly regarding asset dissipation and child removal between Zimbabwe and South Africa. It also demonstrates the consequences of non-participation in court-ordered inquiries and the court's willingness to accept uncontroverted evidence in such circumstances.