Chivayo, Madzikanda clash in High Court

An urgent legal dispute has escalated in the High Court of Zimbabwe between businessman Wicknell Chivayo and Sonja Louise Madzikanda, after Chivayo moved to have a divorce-related case dismissed and to overturn what he says is a reinstated anti-dissipation order that has paralysed his business operations.

The matter, filed under multiple case numbers in Harare including HCHF/62/26, HCHF/892/26 and HCHF/1764/26, has become a complex cross-border financial and family law battle involving asset freezes, maintenance obligations and contested marital status.

At the centre of the dispute is Chivayo's urgent application challenging the revival of an anti-dissipation order, which he argues has effectively frozen access to company funds and disrupted his ability to run business operations.

Court papers submitted on his behalf state that the parties were married under customary law and that the union was dissolved in 2024 through the payment and acceptance of gupuro, a traditional divorce token.

Despite this, Madzikanda later approached the courts seeking recognition of the marriage, dissolution orders, spousal maintenance and division of assets.

Chivayo is now asking the High Court to dismiss those claims under Rule 31 of the High Court Rules, arguing that the proceedings are frivolous and vexatious and should not continue.

A key point of contention is an anti-dissipation order granted in South Africa, which Chivayo says has been revived and is now freezing bank accounts and grounding a private aircraft linked to companies associated with him.

The order was initially linked to ongoing litigation in Zimbabwe under HCHF/62/26, which Madzikanda filed in relation to the alleged marriage and its financial consequences.

Chivayo argues that the reinstated order, which was reactivated on April 23, 2026, has left his business entities unable to meet basic operational costs, including salaries, rent and tax obligations.

He further contends that the financial restrictions put him at risk of being held in contempt of court for failing to meet maintenance obligations arising from a consent order under HCHF/892/26, which relates to the welfare of the couple's minor children.

The application stresses that the children's interests are being adversely affected by the current financial constraints and argues that urgent judicial intervention is required to prevent further harm.

Chivayo also maintains that the matter was filed within the required urgency timelines and should be heard without delay due to what he describes as ongoing financial prejudice and legal exposure.

An anti-dissipation order is a legal remedy designed to prevent a party from disposing of assets while a dispute is pending, ensuring that funds or property remain available to satisfy any future court judgment. However, such orders can significantly restrict access to liquidity and disrupt normal business activity.

Madzikanda has been instructed to respond to the application within the stipulated timeframe, after which the court may proceed to determine the matter, including potentially hearing it in her absence should she fail to file opposing papers.

The High Court is expected to decide on the urgent application in due course as the legal and financial dispute continues to unfold.