The High Court has dismissed an application by businessman Wicknell Chivayo seeking to stop legal claims filed by his former partner, Sonja Louise Madzikanda, in a dispute involving asset division, maintenance, dissolution of marriage and the recognition of a civil partnership.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice Fatima Maxwell ruled that Chivayo’s application was effectively an attempt to avoid an earlier court-sanctioned agreement between the parties.
The dispute stems from proceedings initiated earlier this year after Madzikanda filed divorce-related claims against Chivayo. On March 4, 2026, Chivayo approached the court on an urgent basis seeking interim access to the couple’s minor children while the main case was pending.
That matter was resolved through a consent order granted by Justice Amy Tsanga on April 2, 2026.
Importantly, the agreement went beyond child access arrangements and recorded that both parties had agreed that issues relating to the financial consequences of the breakdown of their relationship would be determined under the main divorce proceedings registered as case HCHF 62/2026.
Justice Maxwell found that Chivayo’s subsequent application, filed on April 27, sought to undermine that agreement by attempting to have claims relating to divorce, property division, maintenance and the existence of a civil partnership dismissed.
The judge held that the application sought to achieve a result that was inconsistent with the earlier consent order.
“The effect of that order is that the parties must litigate under HCHF 62/26 the proprietary issues between them,” Justice Maxwell ruled.
The court stressed that judicial orders remain binding unless they are lawfully set aside or varied by a competent court.
“It is trite that once a court has made an order, it binds all and sundry concerned. Everyone is bound by the court order until it is lawfully altered or discharged by a court of competent jurisdiction or statute,” the judgment stated.
Justice Maxwell was also critical of Chivayo’s failure to disclose the existence of the consent order when bringing the latest application.
“Applicant did not address or refer to the existence of the order in HCHF 892/26. I take it as an attempt to pull wool over the court’s eyes,” the judge said.
The court further relied on the legal principle that litigants cannot adopt contradictory positions in legal proceedings.
Justice Maxwell held that Chivayo could not agree that property-related issues be resolved in one case and later seek to prevent those same issues from being heard.
The judge also found that the legal rule relied upon by Chivayo did not apply in the circumstances.
Rule 31(1) of the High Court Rules allows a defendant to seek dismissal of an action on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious. However, the court found that Chivayo had effectively waived that right by consenting to have the proprietary issues determined in the divorce proceedings.
Justice Maxwell also noted that the rule is intended for cases where an entire claim is hopeless, not where some aspects of a claim remain legally arguable.
The court observed that Chivayo was not challenging all aspects of Madzikanda’s case, including claims relating to custody and maintenance.
The judgment further noted that the parties disagreed on whether the provisions of Zimbabwe’s marriage laws applied to their relationship, while Madzikanda was also relying on constitutional arguments in support of her claims.
“I am not persuaded that the summons can be termed totally hopeless to warrant dismissal,” Justice Maxwell concluded.
The application was dismissed with costs.
Chivayo was represented by Advocates Sylvester Hashiti and Edley Mubaiwa of Mpofu Mazhata Chambers, while Madzikanda was represented by Advocate Regina Mabwe of Mahuni Gidiri Law Chambers.
The ruling comes amid a high-profile legal battle in which Madzikanda is reportedly seeking US$25 million as part of a divorce settlement.
In recent weeks, Madzikanda claimed on social media that a court had ruled she was never married to Chivayo and had dismissed her divorce application. However, her own legal representatives have reportedly distanced themselves from those claims, saying no such judgment exists.
Chivayo’s lawyers maintain that although the couple have two young children together, they were never legally married.
Discover more from Nehanda Radio
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
