Online Reporter
SOCIAL media platforms were this week awash with debate following a court dispute between Blessing Togarepi and the Chihota family of Dangamvura, with thousands of netizens weighing in on whether he should be refunded the US$3 500 he spent on roora after the marriage col-lapsed before it had even begun.
The matter, heard at Chief Mutasa’s community court last Saturday, has ignited a wider national conversation about roora refunds when traditional unions fail to materialise.
Togarepi dragged the Chihota family before the traditional court demanding the return of US$3 500 spent on roora and related marriage expenses after his planned union with Aisha Lulu Chi-hota fell apart.
The case has attracted widespread attention, not only because of the dispute over the bride price, but also because it marks Togarepi’s fourth failed marriage since 2020.
According to Togarepi, he was initially told that Aisha would join him as his wife on June 13. However, the handover date was later postponed to June 20 before, he claims, his family delegation was eventually chased away when they returned to collect the bride.
During the confrontation, Togarepi alleged that Aisha began behaving unusually, which he interpreted as a spiritual manifestation.
“I prayed and sought divine intervention to cast out the spirit,” he told the court.
The incident marked yet another heartbreak in a string of failed marriages that Togarepi says have left him confused and emotionally drained.
His first marriage, to Anita Nyoni, reportedly ended only days after roora was paid. His second union, with Natasha Chamisa, lasted just two weeks, while his third marriage to Purity Kufakwenyika survived only five days.
Now, his fourth marriage has ended before the couple could even begin living together.
Togarepi told the court that three of the four marriages collapsed after the women allegedly “manifested some spirit”.
“All these things happening in my life are making me lose my peace because I no longer understand who cursed me. Marriage for me is not working,” he said.
In his testimony, Togarepi said he paid US$2 200 in roora and incurred additional costs that brought his total expenditure to approximately US$3 500.
“I married Aisha on June 6 and paid US$2 200 in roora, with other expenses bringing the total amount spent to about US$3 500,” he said.
He told the court that he had been informed Aisha’s father was living in Dubai and that her parents had separated when she was nine years old.
While his family had been warmly received during the traditional marriage ceremony, problems allegedly emerged when the agreed handover date repeatedly changed.
“When we went back to collect my wife, we went there peacefully, but the situation changed. We were told different things and were eventually chased away,” he said.
Togarepi further claimed that he later discovered that the man who had represented Aisha’s father during the ceremony was her maternal uncle rather than a paternal relative, as he had believed.
“When I asked for my money back, the family said they could only give me a small divorce token because they felt I had insulted Aisha. They told me the money had already been shared among relatives and could not be returned,” he said.
However, Aisha’s uncle, Innocent Manana, challenged Togarepi’s version of events.
Manana told the court that the family had never refused to return the money and had initially intended to hand Aisha over to her husband after a short delay.
According to him, Aisha fell ill with severe menstrual pains shortly before she was due to move in with Togarepi.
He also accused Togarepi of rushing the process and approaching the family in a manner they did not appreciate.
“We have the roora with us. Aisha’s father is currently in Dubai, and we are yet to hand over the money to him when he returns,” Manana told the court.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Chief Mutasa ruled that the Chihota family should refund Togarepi by August 30.
The ruling has fuelled intense debate across social media platforms, where many users expressed sympathy for Togarepi and argued that the money should be returned because the marriage never materialised.
“A man cannot lose thousands of dollars for a marriage that never started. Families should be held accountable when traditional marriage arrangements collapse,” wrote Facebook user Wilson Chaitweyi.
Another commenter, Tanaka Paratema, said: “Roora is paid to unite families, not to create financial disputes. If the marriage cannot continue, both families should find a fair solution.”
Others questioned why Togarepi had been forced to pursue legal action after spending thousands of dollars preparing for a marriage that failed before cohabitation.
Not everyone sided with the groom.
Many social media users focused on Togarepi’s history of failed marriages, arguing that the pattern raised questions beyond the current dispute.
“Four marriages failing cannot be ignored. Maybe he needs to look at himself and seek guidance. He indeed could be cursed,” commented Daniel Mupemba.
Ashley Mapfumo added: “Everyone is blaming the family, but there are always two sides to every story.”
The controversy has reignited discussions about accountability in traditional marriage arrangements and whether repeated marital breakdowns point to deeper personal challenges.
Aisha, who appeared in court with her face covered, disputed several of Togarepi’s claims.
In a statement she reportedly circulated, she alleged that Togarepi rushed the marriage process before she was ready.
She further claimed that he had promised to pay US$6 500 but ultimately paid less, adding that she had also contributed financially towards preparations for the ceremony.
Aisha said the pair had met fewer than seven times before the marriage and further alleged that Togarepi had assaulted her on one occasion.
She maintained that she had never refused to refund the roora money and was working on a payment plan.
For now, attention remains fixed on the August 30 deadline set by Chief Mutasa for the Chihota family to refund the money, as Zimbabweans continue debating who should bear the financial burden when a traditional marriage collapses before it begins.
