High Court Rejects Chivayo Bid to Block Sonja Madzikanda's Multi-Million-Dollar Claims

The High Court has dismissed an application by businessman Wicknell Munodaani Chivayo seeking to halt legal proceedings brought by his former partner, Sonja Louise Madzikanda, in which she is pursuing a declaration of a civil partnership, maintenance, asset sharing, and divorce-related claims.

In a judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice Fatima Maxwell ruled that Chivayo's application amounted to an attempt to circumvent an existing court order that both parties had previously agreed to. The dispute stems from an urgent chamber application filed by Chivayo on 4 March 2026 regarding access to the couple's minor children while broader family law issues remained unresolved.

The matter was subsequently settled through a consent order issued by Justice Amy Tsanga on 2 April 2026. Under that agreement, both parties expressly accepted that all issues relating to the financial consequences arising from the breakdown of their relationship would be determined under case number HCHF 62/2026, the main matter initiated by Madzikanda.

Justice Maxwell found that Chivayo's later application, filed on 27 April 2026, sought to prevent those same issues from being heard despite the earlier agreement.

According to the judge, the effect of the consent order was clear: the parties had already agreed that questions concerning property rights and financial consequences would be determined in the main proceedings. She ruled that the latest application was effectively an attempt to reverse a position that Chivayo had voluntarily accepted before the court. The judge also criticised Chivayo's legal papers for failing to disclose the existence of the earlier consent order.

Justice Maxwell described the omission as an apparent effort to mislead the court and emphasised that court orders remain binding on all parties unless properly challenged and set aside through lawful procedures. The court further rejected arguments based on High Court Rule 31(1), which permits the dismissal of actions that are frivolous, vexatious or entirely without merit. Justice Maxwell noted that the rule was intended for cases where an entire claim is hopeless and incapable of succeeding.

In this matter, she found that Madzikanda's summons could not be described as entirely unsustainable, particularly given that some aspects of the case, including maintenance and custody-related issues, remained undisputed. The judge also observed that the parties continued to disagree on whether the provisions of the Marriages Act applied to their relationship, while Madzikanda's case additionally relied on constitutional arguments that had yet to be fully ventilated before the court.

Citing the legal principle that litigants cannot adopt contradictory positions to suit changing circumstances, Justice Maxwell held that Chivayo could not agree to the determination of proprietary issues in one proceeding and later seek to prevent that very process from taking place. The application was dismissed with costs. Chivayo was represented by Advocate Sylvester Hashiti and Edley Mubaiwa of Mpofu Mazhata Chambers, while Madzikanda was represented by Advocate Regina Mabwe of Mahuni Gidiri Law Chambers.

The ruling comes amid heightened public interest in the dispute. Madzikanda recently claimed on social media that a court had ruled she was never married to Chivayo and had dismissed her divorce case. However, her legal team has maintained that no such judgment exists. Madzikanda is reportedly seeking a settlement valued at US$25 million. Chivayo's lawyers continue to argue that the parties were never legally married, despite sharing two minor children.

Wicknell Chivayo Sonja Madzikanda court case