High Court throws out diaspora man’s roora refund claim

A Zimbabwean man based in the diaspora who demanded a US$33,000 roora refund after being sent a divorce token via WhatsApp has had his case struck off the roll.

Kudakwashe Bhejana, who now lives in the United States and the United Kingdom, had taken his estranged wife, Carlen Nyarumbu, and six of her relatives to the Mutare High Court.

Bhejana was challenging the validity of a gupuro – a traditional divorce token – which he said the Nyarumbu family sent to him via WhatsApp in November last year.

He had asked the court to declare it null and void and to confirm that his customary marriage to Nyarumbu had not been lawfully dissolved, and that any new union she enters into while the marriage subsists is void.

He also argued that the family mediator, or munyai, Zafania Dhliwayo, had breached his mandate by signing the gupuro without his knowledge or consent.

At the same time, Bhejana sought a total of US$250,000 in damages. This included a US$33,000 refund of roora, which he calculated based on the current value of cattle and the calves they would have produced if he had invested the lobola money in livestock.

He further claimed US$12,000 for financial support, accommodation and upkeep provided to Nyarumbu before she moved to the UK, US$6,200 for her relocation, US$1,200 for her trip to the US and another US$1,200 for her return to Zimbabwe.

He also sought US$10,000 he said came from joint savings and was used to buy a residential stand in Paradise Park, Mutare, which he wanted sold and the proceeds shared.

Bhejana also asked to be declared the biological and lawful father of the couple’s minor child, for the child’s birth certificate to be amended to include his name, for custody of the child, and for restrictions on Nyarumbu and her relatives’ access.

His other claims included maintenance for the child, as well as damages for emotional distress, harm to dignity and reputation, aggravated damages, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy and financial manipulation.

However, High Court Judge Justice Sijabuliso Siziba found his case contradictory and upheld an exception raised by Nyarumbu and her relatives.

The judge said Bhejana could not claim a roora refund while insisting the marriage was still subsisting.

“The claims for the roora refund and financial upkeep of the first defendant are contradicted by the averments that plaintiff’s marriage with her is still subsisting,” Justice Siziba said.

The court also questioned the basis of the US$33,000 figure, noting that Bhejana’s own papers stated the roora was paid in cash, not cattle.

There were further contradictions. The judge said there was “no clear basis” for Bhejana to claim maintenance for a child who is not in his custody while he lives abroad.

He also found it illogical for Bhejana to allege that the defendants had wrecked his marriage while maintaining that the marriage still exists.

“The defendants are alleged to have caused a wreckage of his marriage to the first defendant and yet he says that the marriage is still in existence. This is illogical and unintelligible,” said Justice Siziba.

The matter was struck off the roll.

More: H-Metro