certificate by a city woman, Ms Fadeke Obatolu, Mr Mudede conceded that the said policy was unconstitutional and not supported by any law.
He denied that his officials at the Mt Pleasant Office asked Ms Obatolu to first change her maiden name, saying she was actually asked to go to the Makombe Building offices which are computerised.
Ms Obatolu, a registered lawyer, filed a High Court application for an order declaring the RG’s policy unlawful after the officials at the Mt Pleasant Registry Office refused to register the birth of her son.
She is also seeking an order compelling the RG to publish notices of the declaratory order at the registry offices throughout the country to inform and educate all women who are facing similar hassles in obtaining birth certificates for their children.
Ms Obatolu argues that the RG would not suffer any prejudice if the order was published.
STORIES UNDER THIS TOPIC
Mr Mudede is also defending a Constitutional application by Harare lawyer Mr Lawman Chimuriwo and his wife Ms Cynthia Aufi in which the couple claims it was denied a birth certificate for its newly born son Jeremiah Tavonga on the same basis.
Although the couple’s son finally got the birth certificate following an invitation to the offices by the RG’s Office, the family’s lawyer vowed not to drop the case until a declaratory order was issued by the court for the benefit of the nation.
In Ms Obatolu’s case, that is likely to be set down for hearing in the next High Court term, Mr Mudede agreed with the woman that the said policy was unlawful.
“Indeed there is no legal requirement that a woman should be compelled to change her maiden name to that of her husband before their child’s birth can be registered.
“For that reason, it is denied the applicant was asked to do so. I deny that I or my office habitually and incessantly force married women to change their surnames before registering the births of their children as alleged or at all,” he said.
When Ms Obatolu came to make the application for a birth certificate, Mr Mudede said, she was referred to the Central Registry at Makombe Complex where there were computers for certain verifications.
“The centre where she went to make the application is an uncomputerised sub-office and the verification could not be made at the sub-office.
“Such verifications are legally and administratively necessary for security reasons,” he said.
Mr Mudede, however, opposed the woman’s application that the order, if granted, should be published at all registry offices, saying Ms Obatolu had no mandate to represent all women in Zimbabwe.
“In addition, the applicant must not purport to act for all Zimbabwean women, she does not have the mandate to do so,” he said.
According to the woman’s heads of argument prepared by her lawyer Ms Sarudzai Njerere of Honey and Blankenberg, she queried the nature of verifications by the RG’s office in the issuance of a birth certificate.
“He (RG) does not take the court into his confidence as to what these mysterious verifications are. Certainly no law that is administered by him provides for such verifications when one is getting a birth certificate.
“It is humbly submitted that the declaratory order must be granted as it is not opposed and the parties are in agreement that it is a true statement of the law.
“This court has a wide discretion in granting orders and there is no prejudice alleged that first respondent would suffer if the order was displayed to inform women of their rights,” read the document.
Once the order is issued, the woman contends, it becomes a matter of public record and there is no prejudice to require the RG to publish the order at his offices.
“Why should the law be secret?” asked the woman in the court papers.
Ms Obatolu, a Zimbabwean of Kenyan origin is legally married to Mr Cowden Mutizwa Chikomba and their union was blessed with a baby boy on August 7 last year.
Soon after birth, the couple tried unsuccessfully to obtain a birth certificate for their son with the officials asking the woman to first relinquish her maiden name.



