Demand for US$33,000 lobola refund rejected by court… Man claimed he was given a divorce token via WhatsApp

A political analyst’s demand for US$33,000 in roora refund, after his estranged wife served him with a divorce token via WhatsApp, has hit a snag.

Kudakwashe Bhejana, who now stays in the United States and the UK, dragged his estranged wife, Carlen Nyarumbu, and six of her family members, to the Mutare High Court.

In his suit, Bhejana was challenging the validity of the social media divorce token and seeking a total of US$250,000 in damages.

The damages include the US$33,000 bride price reimbursement. In his papers, Bhejana told the court that a divorce token was sent to him through WhatsApp in November last year by the Nyarumbu family. He wanted the local courts to declare it invalid and confirm that his customary marriage to Carlen has not been lawfully dissolved.

At the same time, he wanted his roora refunded, putting its value at US$33,000.

The value was based on cattle and the calves which would have been bred had he invested the money he paid for lobola in cattle.

His application was also seeking “a declaration that the customary marriage between Bhejana and Nyarumbu has not been lawfully dissolved, that the purported gupuro, transmitted via WhatsApp in November 2025 is null and void on all grounds, and that any union entered into by Carlen Nyarumbu with another person during the subsistence of the existing customary marriage is void.”

He also argued that whatever was done was against his rights and he wanted a declaration by the court that Zafania Dhliwayo acted in breach of his mandate as a mediator (munyai) by signing the purported gupuro document without his knowledge or consent. However, Bhejana’s case hit a legal snag after Mutare High Court Judge, Justice Sijabuliso Siziba, found contradictions in his claims.

One of the contradictions was his demand for the bride price refund while insisting that the marriage was still subsisting.

“The claims for the roora refund and financial upkeep of the first defendant are contradicted by the averments that plaintiff’s marriage with her is still subsisting,” said Justice Siziba.

The court also found another problem with Bhejana’s roora claim.

The court said while he sought US$33,000, based on the current value of cattle and their offspring, his own court papers stated that the roora had been paid in cash. Justice Siziba questioned the basis of seeking a cattle-based refund when Bhejana’s pleadings indicated that he did not pay any cattle to his in-laws.

The court upheld the exception raised by Nyarumbu and her relatives and struck the matter off the roll. Bhejana had also wanted the court to declare him the biological and lawful father of the couple’s minor child and order that the child’s birth certificate be amended to include his name.

He sought custody of the child and restrictions on access to the child by Nyarumbu and her relatives.

However, the judge questioned some of those demands, particularly because Bhejana was living abroad while the child was not in his custody.

“There is also no clear basis why the plaintiff is claiming maintenance from the first defendant in respect of the minor child who is not with him,” said Justice Siziba.

Bhejana also claimed that Nyarumbu and her relatives had caused the breakdown of his marriage, while maintaining that the marriage had not been legally dissolved.

This was also disputed by the court.

“The defendants are alleged to have caused a wreckage of his marriage to the first defendant and yet he says that the marriage is still in existence. “This is illogical and unintelligible,” said Justice Siziba. Bhejana wanted US$12,000 for financial support, accommodation and upkeep allegedly provided to Nyarumbu before she relocated to the UK.

He also claimed US$6,200 for her relocation, US$1,200 for her trip to the United States and another US$1.200 for her return trip to Zimbabwe. He further sought US$10,000, which he said came from joint savings and was used to purchase a residential stand in Paradise Park, Mutare.

Bhejana wanted the property sold and the proceeds shared.

His other claims included damages for emotional distress, harm to his dignity and reputation, aggravated damages, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy and financial manipulation. *_-H-Metro_*