Post Reporter
A SPRAWLING 50-page legal suit spanning two continents ended in scathing court rebuke after the Mutare High Court struck off the US$250 000 lawsuit filed by a diaspora-based political analyst against his estranged wife and six of her relatives, dismissing his pleadings as a contradictory and incoherent “rant.”
Mr Kudakwashe Bhejana, a Mutare native currently residing in the United Kingdom and the United States, instituted legal proceedings against his wife, Ms Carlen Nyarumbu, along with her relatives, Mr Kelvin Nyarumbu, Ms Daphne Rupande, Mr Zafana Dhliwayo, Mr Temba Nyarumbu, Ms Susan Nyarumbu, and Mr Frank Vutsa Nyarumbu.
In his suit, Mr Bhejana claimed extensive monetary damages arising from alleged fraud, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, harm to his dignity and reputation, and related causes of action, alongside sweeping demands for declaratory, custody, and ancillary relief.
Mr Bhejana was seeking US$250 000 in damages, including US$33 000 as a refund of the bride price based on the current value of the cattle and their offspring, US$12 000 for financial support, accommodation and upkeep before his wife relocated to the United Kingdom, US$6 200 for her relocation costs, further US$1 200 for her trip to the United States and another US$1 200 for her return trip to Zimbabwe.
He also demanded US$10 000, which he claimed came from their joint savings, which was used to buy a residential stand in Paradise Park, Mutare.
He also wanted the stand sold, and have a share paid to him, as well as US$500 a month in child support, together with unspecified damages for alleged emotional distress, harm to his dignity and reputation and aggravated damages.
However, in a judgment handed down by Mutare High Court Judge, Justice Sijabuliso Siziba, Mr Bhejana’s claims were deemed to have been improperly set out in his summons and declaration.
Justice Siziba described the claims as vague and embarrassing.
“The problem that afflicts his claims is that the claims are not clearly set out in his summons and declaration. There is no coherency, no clarity, there is contradiction, which makes the plaintiff’s claims difficult for any party to respond to. There is therefore merit in the alternative ground of exception by the defendants that the plaintiff has failed to state truly and concisely the nature, extent and grounds of the cause of action,” said Justice Siziba.
The court was dealing with an exception raised by Ms Nyarumbu and her family, who argued that Mr Bhejana’s claim disclosed no cause of action, and alternatively, that his declaration failed to properly and concisely set out the nature, extent and grounds of his claims.
Mr Bhejana had also sought declarations concerning the status of his customary marriage to Ms Nyarumbu.
Among other things, Mr Bhejana asked the court to declare that his marriage to Ms Nyarumbu was not lawfully dissolved, and that a purported divorce token sent via WhatsApp in November 2025 was invalid.
He also sought a declaration that he was the biological and lawful father of their minor child as well as an order directing the relevant authorities to amend the child’s birth certificate to record him as the father.
However, Justice Siziba found contradictions running through the claims.
“The claims for the lobola refund and financial upkeep of the first defendant are contradicted by the averments that plaintiff’s marriage with her is still subsisting,” he said.
Justice Siziba said Mr Bhejana’s position that the marriage was still subsisting also conflicted with his claims of unjust enrichment and financial manipulation.
“The defendants are alleged to have caused a wreckage of his marriage to the first defendant, and yet, he says that the marriage is still in existence. This is illogical and unintelligible,” said Justice Siziba.
The court also questioned Mr Bhejana’s claim for the refund of the bride price, noting that while he sought compensation based on the current value of cattle and their progeny, his own pleadings stated that the bride price had been paid in cash.
Justice Siziba further found problems with Mr Bhejana’s claims concerning a US$10 000 residential stand in Paradise Park, Mutare.
According to the judgment, Mr Bhejana alleged that the money used by Ms Nyarumbu to buy the stand came from her own savings, while at the same time seeking an order for the property to be sold and the proceeds shared.
“No clear factual or legal basis is advanced why that property should then be sold and the proceeds shared,” said Justice Siziba.
The court also questioned the basis of Mr Bhejana’s demands concerning the minor child, including his request for custody while he was residing in the United States, as well as proposed restrictions on access to the child by Ms Nyarumbu and her relatives.
Mr Bhejana had also sought damages for dignity harm, emotional distress, reputational injury, patrimonial and non-patrimonial loss, aggravated damages, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy and financial manipulation.
“Some of those alleged damages have not been justified and some of them like aggravated damages do not make any sense at all,” said Justice Siziba.
Mr Bhejana’s declaration comprised 297 paragraphs and ran to about 50 pages, with Justice Siziba saying it was just a rant, before proceeding to strike the matter off the roll.
US$250 000 roora lawsuit ends in court humiliation
