Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has dismissed a woman’s bid to be declared the sole surviving wife of her late husband, ruling that he was survived by three wives because the evidence failed to establish that his first marriage had been dissolved under customary law.
Justice Amy Tsanga dismissed Pupurai Makoni’s claim to exclusive surviving-spouse status, finding that neither the alleged divorce of the deceased’s first wife, Candy Muganho, nor the challenge to his relationship with Pauline Mushanigwa could withstand the evidence presented at trial.
“The evidence of separation is, therefore, considerably stronger than the evidence of completed dissolution,” Justice Tsanga observed, highlighting the distinction between living apart and legally ending a customary marriage.
The dispute laid bare a bitter contest over marital status, family recognition and the legacy of Paul Sambadoti, who died on August 3, 2019, leaving behind six immovable properties in Zimbabwe and three women claiming recognition as his wives.
Makoni maintained that she was the only wife at the time of his death, arguing that Muganho’s marriage had ended years earlier and that Mushanigwa had been introduced to her as a business partner rather than a spouse.
But the court found that the evidence told a different story.
Makoni testified that she had lived with Sambadoti in Botswana, helped him with business invoicing, contributed to their property acquisitions and nursed him through a prolonged illness before his death. She said neither Muganho nor Mushanigwa had visited him during that period.
Her case against Muganho rested heavily on an alleged confrontation in Botswana around 2008.
According to Makoni, Muganho had travelled there to collect her belongings and seek maintenance for her children when an altercation erupted. Sambadoti allegedly gave her 100 pula as gupuro, a customary divorce token, and declared that she was no longer his wife.
Muganho denied the allegation, insisting that no divorce had taken place and that she and Sambadoti had reconciled despite their marital difficulties. She also testified that she had continued to regard herself as his wife.
Justice Tsanga found the alleged divorce unproven, particularly because the customary procedures surrounding the dissolution of a marriage had not been established.
Makoni’s own witness, Luckson Machiwa, the deceased’s nephew, acknowledged that a customary divorce ordinarily involved a middleman and the wife’s relatives.
Yet there was no satisfactory evidence that Muganho’s family had participated in or accepted the alleged divorce.
“A shouting match in Botswana where Paul Sambadoti is alleged by Pupurai to have flung a 100 pula note at his wife in front of her friend, hardly constitutes the proper notification to the wife’s family that a marriage has ended,” the judge said.
The court also rejected the suggestion that Muganho’s absence from Botswana or her relationship with another man was enough to establish that her marriage had ended.
The claim against Mushanigwa faced a separate hurdle. She testified that lobola had been paid for her, while her mother, Grace Mushanigwa, confirmed receiving the customary groceries through Sambadoti as her son-in-law.
The deceased’s relatives had attended the ceremony, although Sambadoti himself was not present.
Justice Tsanga accepted that the evidence provided a substantial factual basis for recognising Mushanigwa as a wife, noting that customary marriage arrangements could be conducted through representatives.
The funeral and subsequent administration of the estate further complicated Makoni’s claim.
Both Muganho and Mushanigwa participated in registering the estate and were recognised as wives by the Master of the High Court.
The three women also featured in family arrangements concerning rental income from properties left by the deceased.
Ultimately, the judge found that Makoni had established her own status as a wife but had failed to prove that the other two marriages had ceased to exist.
Her claim was dismissed with costs. The ruling underpins a crucial distinction in customary matrimonial disputes: a relationship may fracture, a couple may live apart, and a spouse may form another relationship, but those circumstances do not, without sufficient evidence, establish that a customary marriage has been dissolved.
The judgment closes the door on Makoni’s bid to be recognised as the sole surviving spouse. But for Muganho and Mushanigwa, it preserves their recognition as wives of the late Sambadoti, with the court finding that he was survived by all three women.
