Court dismisses Chivayo bid to throw out Sonja's divorce claims

The High Court has dismissed an application by businessman Wicknell Munodaani Chivayo seeking to strike out claims brought against him by former partner Sonja Louise Madzikanda relating to the division of assets, spousal maintenance, dissolution of marriage and a declaration on the existence and termination of a civil partnership.

In a ruling delivered on Thursday, Justice Fatima Maxwell found that Chivayo's application was effectively an attempt to avoid an existing consent order previously agreed to by both parties.

The dispute stems from divorce proceedings initiated by Madzikanda under case number HCHF 62/2026. On March 4, 2026, Chivayo filed an urgent chamber application seeking access to the parties' minor children pending resolution of the main matter.

That application culminated in a consent order granted by Justice Amy Tsanga on April 2, 2026.

In addition to settling issues relating to parental access, the consent order recorded an agreement between the parties that all proprietary disputes arising from the termination of their relationship would be determined within the divorce proceedings.

Justice Maxwell noted that paragraph one of the order expressly stated: "The question of the proprietary consequences of the termination of the parties' union shall be adjudicated under case number HCHF 62/2026 (divorce matter)."

The judge found that Chivayo's subsequent application, filed on April 27, 2026, sought to undermine that agreement by attempting to dismiss claims relating to asset division, maintenance, divorce and the declaration of a civil partnership.

"The application amounts to a veiled attempt to get the assistance of the court to defeat an extant order by consent," Justice Maxwell ruled.

She held that Chivayo was effectively attempting to withdraw from an agreement already formalised through a court order.

"The effect of that order is that the parties must litigate under HCHF 62/26 the proprietary issues between them," she said.

Justice Maxwell emphasised the binding nature of court orders, stating that parties cannot simply disregard or seek to circumvent orders that remain in force.

"It is trite that once a court has made an order, it binds all and sundry concerned. Everyone is bound by the court order until it is lawfully altered or discharged by a court of competent jurisdiction or statute," she ruled.

The court was also critical of Chivayo's failure to disclose the existence of the earlier consent order in his application.

"Applicant did not address or refer to the existence of the order in HCHF 892/26. I take it as an attempt to pull wool over the court's eyes," Justice Maxwell said.

Invoking the legal principle that litigants cannot adopt contradictory positions in court proceedings, the judge held that Chivayo could not simultaneously agree to have proprietary issues determined under the divorce matter and later seek to prevent those issues from being heard.

"No person can be allowed to take up two positions that are inconsistent with one another, commonly expressed as to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate," she said.

Justice Maxwell further found that Rule 31(1) of the High Court Rules, which Chivayo relied upon, was not applicable in the circumstances.

The rule permits dismissal of actions deemed frivolous or vexatious, but the judge held that Chivayo had effectively waived that argument by consenting to the earlier order.

She also found that the claims brought by Madzikanda could not be described as hopeless or entirely lacking merit.

"I am not persuaded that the summons can be termed totally hopeless to warrant dismissal," Justice Maxwell concluded.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The ruling means that Madzikanda's claims relating to maintenance, custody, property rights and the nature of the parties' relationship will proceed to determination under the main proceedings.

The case has attracted significant public attention amid reports that Madzikanda is seeking US$25 million as part of a settlement. Chivayo's legal team maintains that the parties were never legally married, despite having two children together.

Advocate Sylvester Hashiti and Edley Mubaiwa, instructed by Mpofu Mazhata Chambers, appeared for Chivayo, while Advocate Regina Mabwe, instructed by Mahuni Gidiri Law Chambers, represented Madzikanda.