CONSTITUTIONAL SHOWDOWN: Bulawayo Man Challenges Maintenance Laws Over Paternity Rights

BULAWAYO — A high-stakes legal battle is set to unfold at the Western Commonage Magistrates’ Court today, 21 April 2026, as a Bulawayo man takes his fight against Zimbabwe’s maintenance framework to the Constitutional Court. The applicant is challenging the constitutionality of maintenance enforcement in cases where paternity has not been scientifically established, arguing that the current system is fundamentally flawed and unjust.

The applicant, currently under a court order issued on 5 September 2025, is required to pay US$85 per month in maintenance for two minor children, alongside contributions toward school fees. Despite his compliance, he contends that he is doing so under protest, claiming that his repeated requests for DNA testing to confirm biological paternity have been met with obstruction. He alleges that the children's mother has consistently refused to facilitate the testing process, despite previous court indications, leaving him in a state of legal and financial limbo.

Through his legal counsel, the applicant is seeking constitutional relief, posing a critical question for the courts. Is Section 23 of the Maintenance Act consistent with the Constitution of Zimbabwe? The core of his argument rests on the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty. His legal team asserts:

• Presumption of Innocence: The current enforcement mechanism presumes paternity without scientific proof, effectively penalizing the applicant.

• Liberty vs. Coercion: Section 49 of the Constitution guarantees protection from imprisonment without just cause. The applicant argues that threatening imprisonment for maintenance arrears, without scientific certainty of paternity, amounts to imprisonment without just cause.

"In circumstances where paternity has not been scientifically established… the threat of imprisonment for failure to comply with maintenance obligations may amount to imprisonment without just cause," his lawyers noted in the court papers.

The case has sparked debate among legal professionals regarding the broader implications for domestic relations. An expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, highlighted that the refusal to allow paternity testing often exacerbates domestic tensions.

"We strongly encourage paternity tests as a standard procedure when there is a dispute. By blocking these tests, we are creating a pressure cooker environment," the expert explained. "Unfortunately, that is when we see some people snap, committing horrific acts like killing their spouses or children before taking their own lives after discovering, too late, that the children they poured their lives into are not theirs. Science can prevent these tragedies by providing the truth early."

While the identities of the parties remain protected due to the sensitive nature of the proceedings, the outcome of this case is expected to set a major precedent. It could force a re-evaluation of how Zimbabwean courts manage paternity disputes, potentially mandating scientific proof before maintenance orders can be enforced in contested cases.

Zimbabwe maintenance law constitutional challenge