UK divorce order upheld in Makoni property fight

The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an application by banker Julius Tawona Makoni seeking to block the enforcement of an English divorce judgment that awarded his former wife substantial matrimonial assets.

In a judgment delivered last week, Justice Bharat Patel, with Justices Rita Makarau and Anne-Mary Gowora concurring, ruled that Makoni failed to demonstrate any violation of his constitutional rights and had no prospects of success.

"Accordingly, the court finds that the applicant was not domiciled in Zimbabwe but in the United Kingdom at the relevant time," Justice Patel said.

"Consequently, the court in England was vested with the requisite jurisdictional competence to decide the matrimonial proceedings."

The ruling effectively brings to an end Makoni's long-running legal battle to overturn earlier decisions by Zimbabwean courts recognising and enforcing the English High Court divorce order.

Makoni and his former wife, Pauline Mutsa Makoni, were married in Zimbabwe in 1983 before relocating abroad. Following the breakdown of the marriage, she filed for divorce in England in 2010.

The English court awarded her the London matrimonial home, a property in Chisipite, Harare, and a stand in Shawasha Hills. Makoni retained other assets including properties in Zimbabwe and England, offshore accounts, and shareholding interests in National Merchant Bank Zimbabwe.

The court in England also cited Makoni's failure to fully disclose assets during proceedings.

Makoni later approached the Zimbabwe High Court arguing that the English judgment could not be enforced locally, claiming it violated public policy and left him without a home.

The High Court initially ruled in his favour, finding that the English court lacked jurisdiction on the basis that he remained domiciled in Zimbabwe. However, the Supreme Court later overturned that decision, holding that the jurisdictional challenge had not been properly raised and that enforcement of the foreign judgment did not offend Zimbabwean public policy.

Makoni then sought direct access to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the Supreme Court had violated his rights to equal protection and a fair hearing under sections 56 and 69 of the Constitution.

He further claimed procedural unfairness due to delays in receiving written reasons for the Supreme Court's decision.

The Constitutional Court rejected these arguments, finding that no prejudice had been suffered.

Justice Patel also held that Makoni had long ceased to be domiciled in Zimbabwe, stating that he had lived abroad for decades, established his livelihood overseas, and effectively abandoned his Zimbabwean domicile under section 3(4) of the Immigration Act.

The court further dismissed his argument that the divorce order infringed his right to property and housing, with Justice Patel remarking that it was "almost risible" to suggest the order rendered him homeless.

The application was dismissed, with the court making no order as to costs.