A Harare woman has successfully secured a High Court order to buy out her former husband’s share of their nine-bedroom matrimonial home in Philadelphia, Borrow...
A Harare woman has successfully secured a High Court order to buy out her former husband’s share of their nine-bedroom matrimonial home in Philadelphia, Borrowdale, after the court found that a 50-50 split would not be fair in the circumstances.
Tafadzwa Adelaide Mwale and her former husband, Isaacs Yesake Mwale, had continued living in different sections of the property after their marriage broke down, with Tafadzwa occupying the upstairs section and Isaacs living downstairs.
The property was purchased in August 2017 for US$68,000 and registered in both their names. At the time of the court proceedings, US$34,438.27 remained owing to the developer.
Advertisement
Tafadzwa told the High Court that she had made the larger financial contribution towards purchasing and developing the property. She said she obtained a US$25,000 loan from StanChart Bank for the deposit and later used loans and proceeds from the sale of her CBZ shares to fund construction of the nine-bedroom house.
She also told the court that her former husband, a former transport officer at ZESA Headquarters who had been unemployed since December 2019, had made a significantly smaller financial contribution.
Isaacs opposed her claim for 95 percent of the property, arguing that he was entitled to at least half. He said he had contributed building materials including 80,000 bricks, stones and 30 tonnes of cement towards the foundation.
He also produced quotations for materials including timber, tiles, solar equipment and gutters. Isaacs claimed that he had deposited more than US$40,000 into the couple’s joint account, although he could not produce bank statements because he said the bank required US$500 to retrieve records dating back to 2017.
He argued that his contributions to the marriage should also be considered. He said he had sold houses in Chinhoyi, Gweru, Norton and Mutare to pay school fees and viewed the Borrowdale property as his retirement home.
Justice Phillipa Phillips granted the divorce and considered the parties’ respective contributions and future needs when determining how the property should be divided.
The judge noted that joint registration of property creates a rebuttable presumption of equal ownership, but said the court can depart from an equal division where justice and equity require it, taking into account the factors set out under section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act.
Although Tafadzwa had sought a 95 percent share, the court found that awarding Isaacs only five percent would be too little after a marriage lasting more than 13 years.
The court ultimately awarded 80 percent of the property to Tafadzwa and 20 percent to Isaacs.
The judge also considered the outstanding US$34,438.27 owed to the developer. An initial assessment had placed Isaacs’ share at 30 percent, but this was reduced to 20 percent because Tafadzwa would take responsibility for paying the outstanding amount herself.
The court ordered that the property be valued by an estate agent mutually agreed upon by the parties within 10 working days. If they failed to agree on an estate agent, the Registrar would appoint one.
Tafadzwa was then ordered to buy out Isaacs’ 20 percent share within six months of the valuation.
Isaacs was ordered to sign all documents necessary to transfer his interest in the property. If he failed to do so, the Sheriff would be authorised to sign the documents on his behalf.
The court ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.
