Court Awards Cranborne House to Diplomat’s Ex-wife After 30-year Marriage Collapses

A Harare High Court judge has awarded a Cranborne house to a diplomatโ€™s estranged wife after ruling that it would be unjust to leave her homeless following the collapse of their more than 30-year marriage.

Justice Philipa Phillips granted Marie Therese Kadurira a divorce from Nathan Amos Kadurira and ordered that House No. 6 Biddulph Road, Cranborne, become her โ€œsole and exclusive propertyโ€, despite her husbandโ€™s argument that he bought the property before their marriage.

The court found that Kadurira had lived in the house with the coupleโ€™s children, invested in its upkeep and renovations and had made indirect contributions to the family during the lengthy marriage.

Phillips said it would make little sense to protect the living standards of a child who had been gifted another property while leaving a wife of more than three decades without a home.

โ€œIf a child can deserve a house that she has been living in, what more a spouse that you shared more than 30 years with,โ€ the judge said.

โ€œOne cannot be concerned more about not wanting to disturb a childโ€™s standard of living but prefer to disturb a former wife of 30 yearsโ€™ standard of living in a certain property which you yourself have not lived in for over three years.โ€

The couple met in Senegal in 1993 while Nathan was working there as a government diplomat accountant. They married in Senegal on October 9 that year and later registered their marriage in Zimbabwe in 2001.

Their divorce battle centred largely on several properties, with Marie claiming the Cranborne home while Nathan argued that it was his personal property because he had acquired it before their marriage.

Nathan told the court that he began living at the Cranborne property in 1982 and raised funds to buy it in 1985.

He said Marie had made no โ€œdemonstrable investmentโ€ in the property and maintained that their Zimbabwean marriage certificate meant their marriage was out of community of property.

But the judge said the issue was not simply who had paid for a property.

โ€œFinancial contribution is not the sole aspect the court will consider in making an award,โ€ Justice Phillips said, adding that indirect contributions and the length of the marriage were also important.

The court found that Marie had supported Nathan during the marriage, including while he earned benefits associated with his status as a war veteran.

Justice Phillips also noted that Nathan, now a pensioner, had another place to live at the coupleโ€™s Rusape complex, where he was running businesses including a nightclub and takeaway while also letting out rooms.

โ€œThere would be no justice in rendering her homeless whilst the defendant obviously has options,โ€ the judge said.

The court rejected Nathanโ€™s argument that property acquired before the marriage could not be considered for distribution under Zimbabweโ€™s Matrimonial Causes Act.

The judge said such property could be distributed unless it fell into specific excluded categories, such as inheritance, certain customary property or assets with particular sentimental value.

โ€œThose excluded categories were not pleaded at all by the defendant so the plaintiff is entitled to this property as she prays for,โ€ Justice Phillips ruled.

Nathan was ordered to sign transfer documents for the Cranborne property within six months. If he fails to do so, the Sheriff of the High Court was authorised to sign on his behalf.

In return, Nathan was awarded a house in Chitungwiza, his interest in Plot 11 Friswaag, Nyazura, and the shop at Stand 50768 Chandukuro, Lakeview, Rusape.

The couple agreed on the sharing of most movable property, with Marie receiving a Nissan Murano, Toyota Nadia and household goods at the Cranborne home, while Nathan received, among other items, a 5 000-litre tank, solar equipment, a 55-inch Philips television, refrigerator and lounge suite.

The judge said the marriage had โ€œirretrievably broken downโ€ and granted the divorce.

The court also ordered each party to bear their own legal costs. *NewZW*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *