Here’s a rewritten version of the article, preserving all verifiable facts and aiming for 100% uniqueness:
Zimbabwean Supreme Court Upholds English Divorce Ruling, Dismisses Makoni’s Challenge
The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has definitively ruled in favor of recognizing an English court’s divorce and financial settlement, rejecting a bid by Julius Tawona Makoni to have the foreign judgment declared invalid.The landmark decision, delivered by Justice Samuel Kudya, found that Makoni’s attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the English court in Zimbabwe was misplaced and that the High Court had erred in entertaining his request.
Justice Kudya highlighted that Makoni had not contested the English court’s jurisdiction during the initial proceedings. Moreover, he had previously attempted to appeal the English judgment, an appeal that was ultimately dismissed due to non-compliance with court requirements.
The Supreme Court’s judgment stated that Makoni’s proper course of action would have been to await an application for recognition and enforcement of the English order by the opposing party, Pauline mutsa Makoni. The court noted that Makoni’s application and the subsequent order from the lower court implied an acceptance that only the award of the Harare matrimonial home was contrary to public policy, suggesting the remaining aspects of the English order were not.
Justice Kudya emphasized that the English court had conducted a thorough assessment of both parties’ financial and property holdings. This evaluation concluded that Makoni stood to gain more despite his objections. The court’s findings indicated that pauline Makoni’s benefit was just under US$500,000, while Makoni’s was significantly higher.
The judgment also detailed ample assets retained or controlled by Makoni. Thes included shares in NMBZ valued at over US$1.3 million, properties located in both Zimbabwe and the UK, and offshore accounts holding “hundreds of thousands of pounds.”
The Supreme Court’s directive mandates the recognition of the English final divorce order, including the decree nisi, Justice Richard Robinson‘s judgment, and the financial order, for enforcement purposes. Specifically, Julius Tawona Makoni is ordered to sign all necessary documents for the transfer of properties awarded to Pauline Mutsa Makoni within seven days. Should he fail to comply, the Sheriff is authorized to execute these documents and effect the transfers. Makoni is also responsible for the costs associated with these property transfers and must bear the legal costs for both applications.
Legal experts view this ruling as a meaningful precedent for Zimbabwe,establishing that domestic courts will uphold foreign divorce judgments and financial orders when the originating court possessed jurisdiction and the applied principles do not contravene domestic public policy. The Supreme Court concluded that English law bears strong similarities to Zimbabwean law, thus causing no injustice to Makoni through its application.
Advocate Thabani Mpofu represented Pauline Makoni, while Julius Makoni was represented by Professor Welshman Ncube and Advocate Lewis Uriri.
