Online Reporter
Peter Matika, Zimpapers Writer
THE Bulawayo High Court has overturned the acquittal of a prominent city doctor who had been cleared by a magistrate of failing to comply with a maintenance order, stressing that court-issued maintenance obligations cannot be ignored or privately altered by the parties.
The High Court, sitting in Bulawayo, allowed an appeal by the Prosecutor-General against the acquittal of Bulawayo medical practitioner, Dr Nkonzo Ndebele, who had been charged with failing to comply with a maintenance order.
The court set aside the acquittal entered by the Bulawayo Magistrates Court and substituted it with a guilty verdict, before remitting the matter back to the lower court for determination of the maintenance arrears and sentencing.
The National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe (NPAZ), in a statement on Wednesday, said the judgment reaffirmed the binding nature of maintenance orders and clarified that such orders remain enforceable until formally varied or set aside by a competent court.
The ruling has significant implications for people subject to maintenance orders, particularly those who enter private arrangements with beneficiaries or experience changes in their financial or currency circumstances.
According to the NPAZ, the High Court held that an informal agreement between parties cannot, on its own, relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with an existing court order.
“An informal agreement between the parties cannot, on its own, relieve a person from compliance with an existing court order,” the NPAZ said.
The court also rejected the argument that subsequent changes in currency legislation could automatically suspend or extinguish an obligation imposed by a maintenance order.
This means that where a maintenance order remains valid, the person against whom it was issued is expected to comply with it unless the order is formally changed through the courts.
The High Court further made it clear that disagreements over the calculation or quantum of maintenance arrears do not, in themselves, erase criminal liability arising from non-compliance.
Such disputes, the court held, can be considered when determining the actual amount owed and the appropriate sentence.
The case will now return to the magistrates’ court, which must determine the quantum of arrears before proceeding to sentencing.
The NPAZ said the judgment underscored the principle that any variation of a maintenance order must be properly sanctioned by a competent court.
The matter was subsequently remitted to the magistrates’ court for the outstanding issues relating to arrears and sentencing to be dealt with.
The ruling was issued on September 2 by the National Prosecuting Authority.
