News / Local
Undenge loses maintenance appeal
11 Dec 2015 at 06:59hrs | Views
Energy and Power Development minister Samuel Undenge's application to stop paying maintenance for his teenage daughter, Bongani Tafadzwa Undenge, went up in smoke last week after his application was dismissed by the High Court.
Judge of Appeal Justice Hlekani Mwayera, who sat with Justice Lavender Makoni during the hearing, said section 20 of the Constitution was very clear on the subject which Undenge was challenging.
Justice Mwayera said the section states that: "The State and all institutions and agencies of government at every level must take reasonable measures, including affirmative action programmes, to ensure that youth, that is to say people between the ages of 15 and 35 years, have access to appropriate education and training."
The judge ruled the girl was still in need of maintenance from the responsible person, who in this case is her father, Undenge.
On the question of Bongani raising the application for maintenance, the judge said: ". . . she [Bongani] had the capacity to bring the claim to sue for maintenance in person since she had attained the legal age of majority.
"Lastly, she was empowered to claim by virtue of the Constitution and the Maintenance Act as she still required to pursue her education and training to enable her to be self-sustaining."
Justice Mwayera also said the Constitution does not bar a person from applying for maintenance simply on attaining the age of majority which, in this country, is 18.
"The respondent [Bongani] is not self-supportive and the appellant [Undenge] was held the ‘responsible' person for the maintenance," she said.
The judge also said the maintenance award was granted by the Magistrates' Court after due consideration of all relevant factors and could not be viewed as outrageous given the need for tertiary training.
"The argument that the order is vague and difficult to comply with cannot be sustained either. We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the order is vague because it is specific that maintenance is to be paid till the respondent becomes self-supportive," Justice Mwayera said.
"The appellant unsurprisingly, in a dramatic fashion, given the history of maintenance orders, suggests the appellant might get to 40 still not being self-sustaining.
"Maintenance is a creature of statute and clearly regulated by the Maintenance Act. In the event of a party being aggrieved because of change of circumstances, there is provision for downward and upward variation or, better still, discharge. The order issued by the trial court is specific that the appellant is to pay $350 maintenance per month till the respondent becomes self-supportive," the judge said, while dismissing the appeal.
Judge of Appeal Justice Hlekani Mwayera, who sat with Justice Lavender Makoni during the hearing, said section 20 of the Constitution was very clear on the subject which Undenge was challenging.
Justice Mwayera said the section states that: "The State and all institutions and agencies of government at every level must take reasonable measures, including affirmative action programmes, to ensure that youth, that is to say people between the ages of 15 and 35 years, have access to appropriate education and training."
The judge ruled the girl was still in need of maintenance from the responsible person, who in this case is her father, Undenge.
On the question of Bongani raising the application for maintenance, the judge said: ". . . she [Bongani] had the capacity to bring the claim to sue for maintenance in person since she had attained the legal age of majority.
"Lastly, she was empowered to claim by virtue of the Constitution and the Maintenance Act as she still required to pursue her education and training to enable her to be self-sustaining."
"The respondent [Bongani] is not self-supportive and the appellant [Undenge] was held the ‘responsible' person for the maintenance," she said.
The judge also said the maintenance award was granted by the Magistrates' Court after due consideration of all relevant factors and could not be viewed as outrageous given the need for tertiary training.
"The argument that the order is vague and difficult to comply with cannot be sustained either. We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the order is vague because it is specific that maintenance is to be paid till the respondent becomes self-supportive," Justice Mwayera said.
"The appellant unsurprisingly, in a dramatic fashion, given the history of maintenance orders, suggests the appellant might get to 40 still not being self-sustaining.
"Maintenance is a creature of statute and clearly regulated by the Maintenance Act. In the event of a party being aggrieved because of change of circumstances, there is provision for downward and upward variation or, better still, discharge. The order issued by the trial court is specific that the appellant is to pay $350 maintenance per month till the respondent becomes self-supportive," the judge said, while dismissing the appeal.
Source - newsday
