News / National
Divorcee ordered to stay with estranged wife
18 Oct 2024 at 09:49hrs | Views
The High Court of Harare has ruled in favor of Sarah Madzura, a divorced woman from Chegutu, ordering her estranged husband, Onias Gotora, to allow her to remain in the family home following an eviction attempt. The ruling, delivered by Justice Catherine Bhachi-Muzawazi, addresses a dispute over property rights stemming from their lengthy marriage.
Madzura and Gotora, who were married under customary law for 27 years before their union was dissolved in 2022, share seven children. Although the couple agreed on the end of their relationship due to irreconcilable differences, the division of their assets became contentious.
Prior to the eviction proceedings, Madzura had been awarded a new house at her rural home and a farmhouse for her exclusive use. However, the couple's urban residence in Hintonville, Chegutu - considered the family home and central to this dispute - was placed in a trust established for the benefit of their three minor children. Despite the house not having title deeds and being under council cession solely in Gotora's name, Madzura continued to reside there.
During the magistrates' court proceedings, Gotora sought Madzura's eviction, claiming ownership rights to the property. The lower court ruled in favor of Gotora, stating that Madzura had not established her right to retain possession. The magistrate argued that Gotora, as the property owner, had the legal authority to evict anyone occupying the premises without his consent.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Madzura appealed, asserting that the lower court had erred in granting Gotora's eviction claim, as he lacked the legal standing to do so regarding trust property. She argued that the creation of the trust was intended to defraud her of her equitable share of the assets.
In her ruling, Justice Bhachi-Muzawazi acknowledged that the property had indeed been donated to a trust, emphasizing the importance of protecting the interests of the minor beneficiaries. She stated that the trial court had misinterpreted ownership rights by solely relying on Gotora's name on the property documents.
"The court erred in granting the eviction based on Gotora's individual ownership rights," the judge ruled. "The trust holds the rights to the property, and it is the trust that should have been entitled to pursue any eviction actions."
Justice Bhachi-Muzawazi concluded that the eviction order against Madzura was incorrect and reinforced her right to remain in the matrimonial home as a custodian for their children's benefit. The court remanded the case for further consideration, highlighting the need for a more equitable resolution regarding the family's property.
Madzura and Gotora, who were married under customary law for 27 years before their union was dissolved in 2022, share seven children. Although the couple agreed on the end of their relationship due to irreconcilable differences, the division of their assets became contentious.
Prior to the eviction proceedings, Madzura had been awarded a new house at her rural home and a farmhouse for her exclusive use. However, the couple's urban residence in Hintonville, Chegutu - considered the family home and central to this dispute - was placed in a trust established for the benefit of their three minor children. Despite the house not having title deeds and being under council cession solely in Gotora's name, Madzura continued to reside there.
During the magistrates' court proceedings, Gotora sought Madzura's eviction, claiming ownership rights to the property. The lower court ruled in favor of Gotora, stating that Madzura had not established her right to retain possession. The magistrate argued that Gotora, as the property owner, had the legal authority to evict anyone occupying the premises without his consent.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Madzura appealed, asserting that the lower court had erred in granting Gotora's eviction claim, as he lacked the legal standing to do so regarding trust property. She argued that the creation of the trust was intended to defraud her of her equitable share of the assets.
In her ruling, Justice Bhachi-Muzawazi acknowledged that the property had indeed been donated to a trust, emphasizing the importance of protecting the interests of the minor beneficiaries. She stated that the trial court had misinterpreted ownership rights by solely relying on Gotora's name on the property documents.
"The court erred in granting the eviction based on Gotora's individual ownership rights," the judge ruled. "The trust holds the rights to the property, and it is the trust that should have been entitled to pursue any eviction actions."
Justice Bhachi-Muzawazi concluded that the eviction order against Madzura was incorrect and reinforced her right to remain in the matrimonial home as a custodian for their children's benefit. The court remanded the case for further consideration, highlighting the need for a more equitable resolution regarding the family's property.
Source - newsday
