Online Reporter
Solomon Bhumu
Weekender Reporter
A TENSE legal battle unfolded at the Mutare Civil Court last week where magistrate, Ms Thandiwe Sibanda, presided over a case involving financial claims, and property disputes between former partners who had cohabited for a decade without formalising their relationship.
The applicant, Rumbidzai Chitova, a resident of Chikanga, filed a lawsuit against her ex-partner, Elvis Rambeni, a retired civil servant from Dangamvura.
She demanded repayment of US$2 100 and a share of assets accumulated during their 10-year relationship.
The couple which never formalised their union through lobola or marriage parted ways in July after Rambeni rekindled his relationship with his ex-wife.
“I supported him when he had nothing. I paid rent, bought groceries, and helped him acquire a plot in Odzi. Now he claims that I have no rights because we were not married. That is betrayal,” said Chitova.
In court, Chitova presented receipts and mobile money records showing transfers made to Rambeni over the years, including payments for household expenses and contributions towards the purchase of a vehicle registered in his name.
Rambeni, however, denied any obligation to repay the money or share the property.
He argued that Chitova’s support was voluntary.
“We were just co-habiting, and she offered help willingly. I never promised to repay her. The car and plot are legally mine as they are registered in my name. She has no legal claim over them, and our relationship was never formalised through marriage or any binding agreement,” he stated.
Ms Sibanda acknowledged the emotional and financial complexity of the matter, cautioning that informal relationships often lead to legal disputes when they end.
“Couples should formalise their unions and clearly document financial arrangements. Cohabitation without legal safeguards exposes individuals to risk,” she advised.
After reviewing the evidence, the court ruled in favour of partial debt recovery, ordering Rambeni to repay US$1 800.
However, Chitova’s claim to shared property was dismissed due to insufficient legal proof of joint ownership.
