Chivayo 'pulling wool over court's eyes'

The High Court has dismissed an application by businessman Wicknell Chivayo seeking to strike out claims brought by his former partner, Sonja Louise Madzikanda, in an ongoing legal dispute involving asset division, maintenance, divorce-related relief and the recognition of an alleged civil partnership.

In a ruling delivered on Thursday, Fatima Maxwell found that Chivayo's application was an attempt to circumvent an earlier court order that both parties had agreed to.

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

The dispute stems from an urgent chamber application filed by Chivayo on March 4, 2026, seeking access to the couple's minor children pending the resolution of their broader legal dispute. The matter was settled through a consent order granted by Amy Tsanga on April 2, 2026.

A key provision of that order stated that disputes concerning the proprietary consequences arising from the termination of the parties' relationship would be determined under case number HCHF 62/2026, the principal matter instituted by Madzikanda.

Justice Maxwell held that Chivayo's subsequent application, filed on April 27, 2026, sought to undermine that agreement.

"The effect of that order is that the parties must litigate under HCHF 62/26 the proprietary issues between them. This application seeks to achieve a result that defeats the agreement reached by the parties," she said.

The judge was particularly critical of Chivayo's failure to disclose the existence of the consent order in the application before her.

"I take it as an attempt to pull wool over the court's eyes," Justice Maxwell said.

She reiterated the established legal principle that court orders remain binding until they are lawfully set aside.

"It is trite that once a court has made an order, it binds all and sundry concerned," she stated.

Justice Maxwell further rejected Chivayo's reliance on High Court Rule 31(1), which allows courts to dismiss actions deemed frivolous, vexatious or hopeless.

The court found that the rule was inapplicable because Chivayo had already agreed that the proprietary issues would be determined in the main action. Moreover, the rule applies where an entire case is unsustainable, not where some aspects of a claim may ultimately fail.

The judge noted that Chivayo was not challenging all aspects of Madzikanda's case, including claims relating to custody and maintenance, while the parties also remain divided on the legal framework governing their relationship.

Madzikanda argues that the matter should be considered under the provisions of the Marriages Act and constitutional protections, while Chivayo's legal team maintains that no lawful marriage ever existed between the parties.

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

She also invoked the legal principle that litigants cannot take contradictory positions in court proceedings, describing Chivayo's conduct as an attempt to "blow hot and cold" and "approbate and reprobate."

The application was dismissed with costs.

Chivayo was represented by advocates Sylvester Hashiti and Edley Mubaiwa, instructed by Mpofu Mazhata Chambers. Madzikanda was represented by advocate Regina Mabwe of Mahuni Gidiri Law Chambers.

The ruling comes amid public debate surrounding the status of the relationship. Madzikanda recently claimed on social media that a court had ruled that she was never married to Chivayo and had dismissed her divorce action. However, her legal representatives have reportedly stated that no such judgment exists.

Madzikanda is seeking a settlement reportedly valued at US$25 million, while Chivayo's lawyers continue to argue that the pair, despite sharing two children, were never legally married.

The substantive dispute over the existence of a civil partnership, maintenance and the division of assets is expected to proceed under the main High Court case.