High Court rules in favour of mother in bitter custody battle ending 15-year marriage

HARARE – The High Court of Zimbabwe has granted a decree of divorce to Unity Wenga and Edwin Wenga, ending their nearly 15-year marriage.

The court also awarded custody of the three minor children to the mother, Unity Wenga.

The couple, who were married in 2005, had been separated for over a year and had lost love and affection for each other.

They had five children together, two of whom are now majors. The minor children, names reserved, were the subject of a bitter custody battle between the parents.

In her testimony, Unity Wenga justified her proposal to be awarded custody of the children, citing her ability to provide for their immediate needs and supervise their homework.

She also proposed that Edwin Wenga contribute US$50 per month per child as maintenance and half of each child’s school fees.

Edwin Wenga, on the other hand, alleged that Unity Wenga had brought a boyfriend home and exposed the children to abuse. However, these allegations were not supported by evidence, and the court found them to be neutral.

The court ultimately awarded custody of the minor children to Unity Wenga, citing the best interests of the children. The court also ordered Edwin Wenga to pay US$50 per month per child as maintenance and half of each child’s school fees.

In addition to the custody battle, the couple also disputed the division of their immovable properties.

Unity Wenga proposed that she be awarded Edwin Wenga’s share in the Bluff Hill property, while Edwin Wenga should be awarded her share in the Prospect property.

The court agreed with this proposal, citing the familiarity of the Bluff Hill property to the children and the need to maintain the status quo.

The court also ordered the equal sharing of assets in Wedgeland Farming (Private) Limited, a company owned by the couple.

In his judgment, Justice Neville Wamambo noted that the family unit is of paramount importance and that, wherever possible, minor children should reside with one parent. He also emphasised that the court’s discretion is narrow when parties agree to share assets equally.

“The sale of the properties will be a major change in the lives of the parties when maintaining the status quo will be far less cumbersome or disruptive. Section 7(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Act [Chapter 5:13] enumerates some of the circumstances to be considered in the division of the assets of the parties. In reaching the conclusion I have reached I have considered the provisions of s 7(4) in full. I pay particular attention to para(s) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of s 7(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Act.

“I am cognisant that my discretion is narrow having been assisted by the fact that the parties are in agreement that they should benefit in equal shares to the two immovable properties,” read the judgement.

The divorce was granted, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.