Star Precious Jenami v Shongwe Michael Ndoro and Master of the High Court of Zimbabwe

The applicant and first respondent were formerly married and divorced on 26 November 2019. In subsequent ancillary relief proceedings (HH 451/23), the court ordered that Machipisa Farm (926.5930 hectares) be subdivided, with the applicant receiving 777 hectares and the first respondent receiving the balance. The first respondent appealed to the Supreme Court, which ordered in SC 155/24 that the property be subdivided into two equal portions, with each party awarded one portion. A surveyor was appointed and submitted a subdivision proposal based on equal hectarage (463.2965 hectares each). The applicant objected, arguing that equal portions should consider value, amenities, infrastructure, irrigation, water access, and road frontage, not just land size. Initially, the applicant's attorneys agreed that the surveyor could proceed using documents submitted by the first respondent, but she later challenged the subdivision as not achieving equality as mandated by the Supreme Court.

• Whether the subdivision of the farm into two portions of equal hectarage satisfied the Supreme Court's order to subdivide into 'two equal portions'
• Whether 'equal portions' means equal in size or equal in value, considering amenities and infrastructure
• Whether the applicant could challenge an administrative process (subdivision permit) to which she had previously acquiesced
• Whether the applicant was entitled to select first which portion she would take
• Whether a declaratur was the appropriate remedy

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

1. Court orders must be construed the same way contracts are construed, with words given their ordinary dictionary meaning unless this would lead to absurdity (applying the literal/golden rule of interpretation). 2. A party cannot approbate and reprobate - having acquiesced to an administrative process and the basis upon which it would be conducted, a party cannot subsequently challenge the outcome of that process. 3. Grievances concerning administrative decisions made pursuant to court orders (such as subdivision permits) must be challenged in the Administrative Court through the proper appeal procedures, not through declaratur applications in the High Court. 4. Where a court order awards property to parties sequentially (first to one party, then 'the other portion' to another), the party mentioned first has the right of first selection.

The court noted that the matter arose from what had been described as an acrimonious divorce. In deciding not to order costs, the court observed that the Supreme Court judgment which formed the basis of the application did not make any order as to costs, and in the original matrimonial proceedings (HH 451/23) each party was ordered to pay their own costs. The court indicated it was inclined to follow the same pattern in this matter, reflecting judicial discretion to decline costs orders in family law disputes despite the applicant's failure.

This case clarifies the interpretation of court orders for property subdivision in matrimonial matters in Zimbabwe. It demonstrates the application of the literal rule of interpretation to court orders, establishing that words must be given their ordinary meaning unless this would lead to absurdity. The case is significant for establishing that parties cannot approbate and reprobate - they cannot acquiesce to an administrative process and then challenge its outcome. It also confirms that challenges to administrative decisions made pursuant to court orders (such as subdivision permits) should be taken to the Administrative Court rather than through declaratur applications. The case provides guidance on the proper forum for challenging administrative actions in the context of matrimonial property distribution.