Court Gives Woman Larger Share of Property After Husband’s Unemployment

Southerton Business Times

Aug 30

2 min read

The High Court has awarded a divorced woman a larger share of the couple’s matrimonial property after finding that she carried the main financial burden of servicing their home mortgages during her husband’s prolonged unemployment.

High Court Justice Phillipa Phillips awarded Caecilia Nyamutswa 100 percent of the couple’s Colne Valley property, 60 percent of their Vainona home and a 12-acre plot in Shamva. The ruling followed the dissolution of Nyamutswa’s 24-year marriage to Cosmas Nyamutswa. Cosmas was awarded the remaining 40 percent interest in the Vainona property, together with his Cessna aircraft, two boats, fishing equipment, firearms and royalties from two books he had authored.

Court rejects automatic 50-50 property split

The judgment highlights that the division of matrimonial property in a divorce does not necessarily have to be an equal 50-50 split. Justice Phillips considered the couple’s respective financial and non-financial contributions to the marriage when determining how the assets should be divided. The court heard that Caecilia, a lawyer who later moved into banking, personally serviced the mortgages on the couple’s two properties while Cosmas was unemployed for approximately eight years.

Her financial contribution to acquiring and preserving the family properties was therefore a significant factor in the court’s decision. However, the judge also recognised Cosmas’s contribution to the household during the marriage.

Husband’s contribution recognised

Cosmas was described as having performed responsibilities associated with being a house husband, including taking the couple’s children to school and providing career advice to his wife. Justice Phillips found that his non-financial contribution could not simply be disregarded when dividing the matrimonial estate.

Although Cosmas had made limited direct financial contributions towards the acquisition and preservation of some of the properties, the court concluded that he should retain a share of the matrimonial assets. The judgment consequently gave Caecilia the larger overall share while ensuring that Cosmas retained significant assets.

Court rejects maintenance claims

The High Court also rejected Cosmas’s application for post-divorce medical aid maintenance.

The court further declined to order Caecilia to meet university expenses for their three adult children. The couple had married at Sacred Heart Cathedral on October 7, 2000, but their marriage was eventually dissolved after the court found that it had irretrievably broken down.

The proceedings included allegations concerning Cosmas’s anger and what was described as wasteful spending, which formed part of the broader dispute surrounding the breakdown of the marriage. The ruling demonstrates the importance of both financial and non-financial contributions when Zimbabwean courts determine how matrimonial assets should be distributed following divorce.

Rather than automatically dividing property equally, the court assessed the circumstances of the marriage and the contributions made by each spouse before determining what it considered a fair distribution.