The High Court has dismissed an application by businessman Wicknell Munodaani Chivayo to throw out his ex-partner Sonja Loiuse Madzikanda’s claims for divorce, asset division, maintenance and a declaration of a civil partnership.
In a ruling handed down on Thursday, Justice Fatima Maxwell said Chivayo’s application was “a veiled attempt to get the assistance of the court to defeat an extant order by consent.”
The dispute dates back to 4 March 2026, when Chivayo filed an urgent chamber application for access to the couple’s minor children pending their divorce. That case ended in a consent order granted by Justice Amy Tsanga on 2 April 2026.
Crucially, paragraph 1 of that order recorded the parties’ agreement that “the question of the proprietary consequences of the termination of the parties’ union shall be adjudicated under case number HCHF 62/2026” — the main divorce matter brought by Madzikanda.
Justice Maxwell found that Chivayo’s new application, filed on 27 April 2026 to dismiss the asset-division and related claims, was an attempt to “resile from” that agreement.
“The effect of that order is that the parties must litigate under HCHF 62/26 the proprietary issues between them,” she said. “This application seeks to achieve a result that defeats the agreement reached by the parties.”
The judge was scathing about Chivayo’s failure to disclose the consent order in his papers: “I take it as an attempt to pull wool over the court’s eyes.”
She stressed that court orders bind everyone until lawfully set aside: “It is trite that once a court has made an order, it binds all and sundry concerned.”
Justice Maxwell also ruled that High Court rule 31(1) — which allows dismissal of frivolous or vexatious actions — did not apply. Chivayo had already consented to have the proprietary issues determined in HCHF 62/2026, and the rule is meant for cases where the whole action is hopeless, not where part of a claim may succeed.
She noted Chivayo was not challenging the custody and maintenance claims, and that the parties disagreed on whether the Marriages Act [Chapter 5:17] applied — with Madzikanda also relying on constitutional arguments.
“I am not persuaded that the summons can be termed totally hopeless to warrant dismissal,” Justice Maxwell said, invoking the principle that a litigant cannot “blow hot and cold” or “approbate and reprobate.”
The application was dismissed with costs.
Advocate Sylvester Hashiti and Edley Mubaiwa, instructed by Mpofu Mazhata Chambers, appeared for Chivayo. Advocate Regina Mabwe, instructed by Mahuni Gidiri Law Chambers, appeared for Madzikanda.
Madzikanda recently claimed on social media that a court had ruled she was never married to Chivayo and had dismissed her divorce. Her own lawyers say no such judgment exists.
She is claiming US$25 million as part of the settlement. Chivayo’s lawyers maintain the pair, who share two young children, were never legally married.
More: ZimLive
Leave a Reply Cancel reply