Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Writer
HARARE lawyer Samantha Nhende lost her appeal before the Supreme Court, which upheld a lower court’s decision to split ownership of a Mabelreign property between her and ex-partner Andrew Zigora, in a ruling that closed the final chapter of an emotional legal battle.
The ruling struck a decisive blow to Nhende’s claim of sole entitlement, affirming that the couple’s years-long unregistered customary union gave rise to a tacit universal partnership — a legal bond as real, though unwritten.
Despite her attempt to overturn the prior judgment, the court maintained that the fruits of their shared life must be shared in kind. The property, a quiet corner of domestic history turned legal battleground, was ordered to be divided — 55 percent in favour of Nhende, 45 percent to Zigora.
The ruling not only reinforced the legal weight of informal unions, but also underscored that contributions made in the shadows of love can echo loudly in the chambers of justice.
Justice Hlekani Mwayera, delivering the lead judgment, stated, “Where parties pool their resources for their mutual benefit, even in the absence of a formalised agreement, a tacit universal partnership may be established.”
The court rejected Nhende’s argument that customary law unions cannot give rise to such partnerships and emphasised that general law principles can be applied where customary law leaves gaps.
The case revolved around a property in Mabelreign acquired during the couple’s union, which lasted from 2010 to 2021. The property was bought through a mortgage secured in Nhende’s name, with Zigora using his property as collateral and contributing to renovations and expenses.
Nhende argued that the property was her sole acquisition and challenged the lower court’s decision to recognise Zigora’s contributions.
In its analysis, the court highlighted that both direct and indirect contributions were relevant in determining joint ownership. Justice Mwayera remarked, “The parties consistently consulted each other and shared resources to acquire and maintain the property as their matrimonial home, reflecting an intention to jointly benefit.”
The appeal raised questions about whether the High Court erred in finding that the parties were in a tacit universal partnership and whether the 55:45 property division was appropriate. Nhende contended that the court should have considered Zigora’s pre-existing property in Madokero, which he retained, and argued that his contributions to the Mabelreign property were limited to renovations and improvements.
The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, noting that issues related to the Madokero property had not been raised in the lower court. Furthermore, the court found that the High Court had judiciously exercised its discretion, taking into account the parties’ respective contributions.
“The court a quo properly considered the shared intent and contributions of both parties, awarding each an equitable share of the property,” Justice Mwayera said.
The judgment reinforces the principle that equitable remedies, including the doctrine of tacit universal partnership, can apply to customary unions where justice demands it.
The court also rejected the appellant’s claim for costs, stating that matrimonial matters warrant a different approach. “There shall be no order as to costs,” Justice Mwayera concluded.
Justices Susan Mavangira and George Chiweshe concurred with the judgment.
