Sandra Manyangadze v Herbert Jena

The applicant instituted summons against the respondent under case number HC 130/24 for the sharing of matrimonial property. The respondent, despite being aware of the action, elected not to defend it. Judgment was granted by Ndlovu J on 15 November 2024, which inter alia directed that the applicant was to retain possession of a Mercedes Benz GLE (registration AGF 6111) and a Volkswagen Golf (registration 3608125). These vehicles were acquired during the marriage and formed part of the parties' joint estate. The respondent was served with and acknowledged receipt of the order but failed to comply. The applicant's legal practitioners demanded compliance on 19 February 2025, warning of contempt proceedings. The respondent's legal practitioners undertook to respond by 5 March 2025 but did not do so. The respondent filed a notice of opposition and sought a stay of contempt proceedings pending determination of his rescission application (HCHF 994/25), which had been filed in March 2025. He also alleged the vehicles belonged to a third party. The rescission application was dismissed by Mhuri J on 15 September 2025, finding the respondent had been in wilful default with no prospects of success. The contempt application was resuscitated on 14 October 2025.

• Whether the respondent was in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order in HC 130/24
• Whether the essential elements of contempt of court were established: (1) existence of an order against the respondent; (2) awareness of the order; and (3) wilful disobedience or neglect to comply
• Whether the dismissal of the rescission application removed any basis for the respondent's non-compliance

1. The Respondent was declared to be in contempt of court. 2. The Respondent was sentenced to ninety (90) days' imprisonment, suspended on condition that he complies with the order in Case Number HC 130/24 within seventy-two (72) hours of the order. 3. The Respondent was ordered to pay costs of the application on a legal practitioner and client scale.

A person is in contempt of court when three essential elements are established: (1) an order was granted against the respondent; (2) the respondent was aware of the order; and (3) the respondent wilfully disobeyed or neglected to comply with the order. Court orders, whether correctly or incorrectly granted, must be obeyed until they are properly set aside through appropriate legal processes. Where a rescission application has been dismissed, there is no lawful justification for continued non-compliance with the underlying court order, and wilfulness and mala fides may be properly inferred from such continued non-compliance.

The court noted that the respondent had alleged in his opposition that the vehicles in question did not belong to him but to a third party, though this was not explored or substantiated in the proceedings. The court also observed that the respondent's legal practitioners had undertaken to provide a substantive response after consulting their client who was allegedly out of town, but no such response was ever forthcoming, which may have contributed to the inference of mala fides in the respondent's conduct.

This case reinforces the fundamental principle in Zimbabwean (and South African) law that court orders must be obeyed until they are properly set aside, regardless of whether they are perceived to be correct or incorrect. It illustrates the application of the established test for contempt of court and demonstrates that a dismissed rescission application removes any justification for continued non-compliance with a court order. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to impose custodial sentences (albeit suspended) for wilful contempt in matrimonial property matters, emphasizing the seriousness with which the courts view disobedience of their orders. The award of costs on a legal practitioner and client scale reflects the punitive approach taken toward contemnors.