Online Reporter
Arron Nyamayaro
A Domboshava polygamous kraal head, who was reportedly divorced for marrying his fourth wife’s best friend, has turned to the courts, seeking to sell their rural home and divide property.
He is battling with his estranged fourth wife.
Kefas Mushore (50), popularly known as “Sabhuku Bhuru”—for having children with multiple women—has approached Chinamhora Magistrates Court against his former fourth wife, Judith Maruta (33).
Maruta is the mother of Mushore’s two minor children.
Disagreement between the couple has become a talking point among residents of Mushayapokuvaka and Mushore villages’ surrounding community.
Some villagers expressed shock that Mushore, a kraal head and a guardian of “rural moral values,” would push for a rural house to be sold while the couple’s children are still very young.
The dispute was reportedly first taken before traditional leadership, where Chief Chinamhora dismissed the matter. Mushore then filed the case at magistrates’ level.
In his court application, Mushore described the relationship as an unregistered customary law union (UCLU) running from September 2021 until October 2024, when the parties allegedly dissolved their union.
He said customary payments (“gupuro”) were made to the defendant’s relatives and argued that, despite the union not being valid at law, it should still be considered for property distribution.
Mushore further stated that:
– Two minor children were born out of the union.
– The parties lived according to Apostolic religious norms and practices.
– Both spouses jointly contributed to acquiring movable and immovable property for the household.
– There was no clear agreement on how property should be divided upon dissolution.
– During the union, they jointly acquired a three-bedroom rural homestead in Mushayapokuvaka Village (approximately 1,000 square metres) under Chief Chinamhora.
In her answering affidavits, Maruta disputed Mushore’s proposed distribution and said she made substantial indirect contributions to the estate.
She said during the union, she operated a hardware business and proceeds allegedly went into the joint household. She said she also contributed through household chores, cooking for builders, supervising construction projects, and caring for the children.
Maruta also argued that the minor children were co-buyers of the property and that their rights should be considered.
She denied that Mushore should be awarded the specific movables he listed, saying some of those items were actually her pre-marital separate assets, not part of the joint estate. Alternatively, she proposed that the court implement an equitable division based on the needs and welfare of the minor children.
Maruta argued that awarding Mushore two-thirds and her one-third would be unjust and contrary to the principles applied in tacit universal partnership, which generally leans toward equal sharing unless a contrary intention is proven through the parties’ conduct.
The matter is expected to be heard by a Chinamhora Magistrate.
