Court name
Harare High Court
Case number
HC 6177 of 2013

Sachikonye v Sachikonye (HC 6177 of 2013) [2015] ZWHHC 679 (22 July 2015);

Law report citations
Media neutral citation
[2015] ZWHHC 679
Mwayera J


HH 679/15

HC 6177/13









HARARE, 7, 9 & 23 July 2015




Civil Continuous Roll




Mrs B Mtetwa, for the plaintiff

Ms F. Mahere, for the defendant



            MWAYERA J: The plaintiff issued summons for divorce and management of ancillary issues thereto. The defendant defended the matter and filed subsequent pleadings. The plaintiff and the defendant were married in terms of the marriages act [Chapter 5:11]. At PTC stage the parties came out with a joint PTC minute. They agreed the marriage had irretrievably broken down and identified the following as issues for referral to trial:

  1. What constitutes assets of the spouses as envisaged under s 7 (1) of the    matrimonial causes Act [Chapter 5:13].
  2.   Whether the plaintiff is entitled to post – divorce spousal maintenance.
    1.   If she is in what amount and for what period.

On the date of trial Ms Mtetwa and Ms Mahere for the plaintiff and the defendant respectively advised the parties had come up with a consent paper which they wished to regulate their divorce and ancillary issues. The plaintiff and the defendant both confirmed their desire to divorce by consent and agreed to have the consent paper regulate the divorce and ancillary issues.

             There was however no agreement as regards the date of solemnisation of the marriage and identify of the marriage officer. The plaintiff produced a duplicate original register  marriage certificate duly certified by the Registrar of Marriages as exh 2. According to exh 2 the parties were married on 6 June 1998 by a marriage officer whose official designation was Magistrate. The defendant on the other hand insisted he was married in August 1998. Initially he was not sure of the date. Later he gave the 7th of August as the date. Of necessity evidence had to be adduced from the Registrar of Marriages on the marriage details and authenticity. The defendant insisted it was a Church Minister who solemnised the marriage while the plaintiff was adamant that the church ceremony was just a blessing by the pastor and that no other marriage certificate was issued.

The defendant carried out checks and through instructing counsel availed to registeree that the second exhibit was authentic from the marriage registrar’s records and that no other marriage certificate involving the parties could be availed and that the court should grant a decree of divorce as consented to by the parties. Given this development there is no reason why the matter has to be reopened for adducement of none existent of evidence, which fact the parties agreed on.

It is agreed by the parties that they were civilly married and that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The parties have also agreed per the duly signed consent paper on ancillary issues.

Accordingly, it is ordered by consent that:

  1. A decree of divorce be and is hereby granted.
  2. The property and maintenance rights of the parties shall be in terms of the consent paper signed by the parties and filed of record.
  3. The consent paper entered into and signed by the parties on 9 July 2015 shall be incorporated as an order of this court.
  4. Each party shall bear their own costs.




Mtetwa & Nyambirai, plaintiff’s legal practitioners

Scalen & Holderness, defendant’s legal practitioners