admin
Lovemore Kadzura
Rusape Correspondent
A community court recently turned down an application for the sharing of property by a youthful estranged couple since the two were still married.
Naume Mutemachani had dragged her husband, Luckmore Chindomu to Chief Makoni’s court with the intention of sharing the property they have acquired in their short-lived marriage.
Mutemachani accused her husband of being abusive and promiscuous.
She also claimed that Chindomu infected her with gonorrhea.
“I eloped to Chindomu in March 2021. I gave birth to a premature baby at seven months. I was told to carry my baby the kangaroo way, but Chindomu’s mother would take my baby and instruct Luckmore’s sister to strap her on her back while l went to the fields.
“One day on our way back from the fields, I was called to the kitchen, only to realise that my mother-in-law was holding my dead baby. I continued staying with my husband, but his behaviour towards me had changed drastically.
“He started sleeping out most of the days, claiming he was at his shops.
“I later discovered that he had several girlfriends, including one of our shopkeepers. I saw several love messages in his phone. I later fell very sick and informed my husband, but he did nothing to get me medical attention.
“I then went back to my parents’ home and my brother accompanied me to the hospital where I tested positive for gonorrhea,” she said.
Mutemachani said she informed Chindomu about the new development and begged him to seek medical assistance, but he refused.
“To my surprise, the following day, Chindomu took in another wife and that is when I decided to leave him. I want us to share the following property — a grinding mill, a plot, US$900, three grocery shops, two refridgerators, solar panels, electric pumps, three television sets, radios, three tonnes of maize, three buckets of sugar beans, 20 iron sheets, seven bags of cement, two bags of fertiliser, three window frames, brick force, 29 chickens, two hoes, an axe, a bicycle, barbed wire, a bed, mattress and blankets. We should also share floor tiles, a tsotso stove, dishes and plastic buckets,” said Mutemachani.
Chindomu told the court that he still loves Mutemachani but said some of the property she wants to share was acquired before they got married.
“Most of the things she listed were acquired well before we got married. I will only share the property we jointly acquired. I was operating shops and a grinding mill before our marriage.
“We are yet to divorce. Her brother came and took her away from me. I was expecting her to return home, only to receive summons to appear before this court,” said Chindomu.
The court ruled that if the two want to share the property, they should divorce first.
The court asked the two if they are any chances of reconciliation and Chindomu insisted that he still loves his wife.
“This court cannot force a couple that is still married to share property. For this court to preside over the property sharing case, there must be evidence of a divorce. In this case, no one was issued with a divorce token. This means that traditionally, your marriage still subsists despite your separation. You can go outside this court complex and divorce, then come back and we deliberate on property sharing,” ruled the court.
The estranged couple and their relatives went outside the court premises where Mutemachani handed Chindomu ZWL2 000 as a divorce token.
The sharing of property case will be heard on September 8.
Online Reporter