The applicant and 1st respondent were married to each other in terms of the Marriages Act [Chapter 5:11] and had two children born on 12 June 1999 and 11 July 2004. The 1st respondent acquired a mining business in 1994, long before meeting the applicant in 1998. The mine was registered in the 1st respondent's name. The 1st respondent issued summons for divorce under case number HC 2079/10. The 2nd respondent was employed as a manageress at the mine. The applicant alleged that the 2nd respondent was in a love relationship with the 1st respondent and was the source of her marital problems. The 1st respondent gave the applicant a portion of the mine's gold production and retained the remainder, with proceeds supposed to go towards maintenance. The applicant brought an urgent application seeking equal sharing of mine proceeds and interdicts preventing 1st respondent from barring her from working at the mine and preventing 2nd respondent from being involved in mine operations.
The application was dismissed with costs.
1. An application based on false averments and material misrepresentations to the court will be dismissed (following Venter vs Van Groan 1929 TPD 435 and Graspeak Investments P/L vs Delta Corporation P/L & Anor 2001 (2) ZLR 551 (H) at 555). 2. Maintenance claims should be pursued through the maintenance court and not through interim interdicts in the High Court. 3. An applicant seeking relief based on an alleged partnership must establish the existence of such partnership with evidence. 4. Relief that would effectively suspend an employee from employment duties must comply with the relevant provisions of the Labour Act and cannot be granted through an interdict that circumvents those provisions.
The court observed that the 2nd respondent was cited in the proceedings because the applicant alleged she was in a love relationship with the 1st respondent and was the source of the marital problems. The court noted that the applicant used falsehoods about the plight of the children to portray a desperate and urgent situation, suggesting disapproval of such tactical misrepresentations in family law matters.
This case demonstrates the importance of full and frank disclosure in urgent applications, particularly in matrimonial disputes. It reinforces the principle that courts will not condone false averments and misrepresentations made to gain sympathy or establish urgency. The case also clarifies that maintenance claims should be pursued through the proper channels (maintenance courts) rather than through interdicts in the High Court. It illustrates the court's vigilance in protecting against abuse of urgent application procedures and emphasizes the consequences of making material misrepresentations to the court.