The Plaintiff and Defendant married on 30 May 2015 under the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11]. The marriage produced two minor children: Evelyn Makanaka Chikobvu (born 9 October 2016) and Shona Talent Chikobvu (born 9 January 2019). On 9 December 2024, the Plaintiff sued for divorce, alleging irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Plaintiff proposed virtual access rights (via WhatsApp, Skype, Zoom) as he works outside Zimbabwe, maintenance of US$125.00 per month per child, payment of school fees, and equal sharing of the matrimonial property (Stand No. 20254 Mvuu Close, Budiriro 5) after the last-born child turns 18. The Defendant opposed virtual access as endangering children's mental development, sought US$300.00 per month per child as maintenance, plus school fees and uniforms separately. She requested that the children remain in the matrimonial home until the last-born reaches majority. The Plaintiff earned US$3,000.00 monthly and already contributed US$755.00 monthly (school fees, transport, food). The Defendant earned US$100.00 monthly from vending. The parties agreed the marriage had broken down irretrievably and that the property should be sold and shared equally, but disputed access arrangements and quantum of maintenance.
1. A decree of divorce was granted. 2. Custody of the two minor children awarded to the Defendant. 3. The Plaintiff to exercise virtual access rights over the children during weekends at reasonable times and on reasonable notice. 4. Plaintiff ordered to contribute school uniforms, pay school fees, school transport, medical aid, and maintenance of US$125.00 per month per child until each child attains majority or becomes self-supporting. 5. When the last-born child turns 18, Stand No. 20254 Mvuu Close, Budiriro 5 to be valued by a Registrar-appointed valuer within 30 days, costs shared equally. 6. Defendant has first option to buy out Plaintiff's 50% share within 3 months of valuation; failing which Plaintiff has second option within a further 3 months. 7. If both parties fail to exercise buyout rights, property to be sold and proceeds shared equally. 8. Each party to bear its own costs.
1. Virtual access rights should be awarded liberally to non-custodial parents to nurture affection and companionship with children, and should not be so confined as to stultify the continuing link between child and parent. 2. The best interests of children are paramount in custody and access decisions per Section 81(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. 3. In determining maintenance, the needs of children must be balanced against the means of the person responsible for payment, with both parents obligated to maintain children according to their respective means per Section 6(4) of the Maintenance Act [Chapter 5:09]. 4. Virtual access arrangements (via WhatsApp, Skype, Zoom) during weekends at reasonable times and on reasonable notice are appropriate where the non-custodial parent works outside Zimbabwe.
The court observed that virtual access helps the non-custodial parent maintain affection and bond with children while they are growing up, provides opportunity to help shape their personality and influence decision-making in their lives and future, and gives children the security of having both parents present in their lives. The court noted that the natural affinity and emotional bond between parent and child are generally irreplaceable and an accepted fact of life, and such association benefits and promotes a child's emotional security and feelings of normality. The court emphasized that there was no reason to stultify the nurturing of a meaningful relationship between the Plaintiff and the minor children.
This case provides important guidance on virtual access rights in the context of modern technology and transnational families in Zimbabwean family law. It demonstrates the court's willingness to adapt traditional access arrangements to accommodate non-custodial parents working outside Zimbabwe while safeguarding children's best interests. The case also reinforces the principle that both parents have a duty to maintain children according to their respective means, and that maintenance orders must balance children's needs against the financial capacity of the paying parent. It applies constitutional provisions on children's rights (sections 19 and 81 of the Constitution) in practical family law disputes.