THE High Court of Zimbabwe has reaffirmed that assets acquired before marriage may be considered during divorce proceedings, but a spouse seeking a substantial share must prove a credible contribution to the asset and provide supporting evidence. The ruling was made by Justice Evangrlista Kabasa in a divorce dispute between Wickens Chirenje and Mordeline Media Chirenje (née Nedziwe), where the defendant sought a 50% share of Exodus Chrome Mine in Lalapanzi. In the judgment delivered June 26, 2026, the court rejected the claim after finding that the mine had been acquired in 2004 more than a decade before the couple married in 2018 and that the defendant had failed to prove any meaningful contribution to its acquisition or development.
Kabasa said the case illustrated an important principle in Zimbabwean matrimonial law. “I must point out that the use of ‘matrimonial property’ to describe Exodus Chrome Mine is a misnomer,” the judge said, citing Supreme Court authority that courts must consider “the assets of the spouses” rather than only property acquired during the marriage. The judge found that the defendant’s evidence was not supported by documentary proof and that her alleged contribution to the mine had been exaggerated.
“I got the distinct impression that she was exaggerating what her contribution was to the acquisition of Exodus Chrome Mine,” Kabasa said. The court heard that Chirenje acquired the mine while he was married to his first wife, who later died before his marriage to the defendant. “The undisputed evidence was that this mine was acquired in 2004 and a licence for it obtained in 2007,” the judge said.
Although the defendant participated in mining activities for a period, the court found that she had kept whatever proceeds she earned and had not invested in improvements at the mine. “With no contribution made with regards to improvements why would the defendant claim a 50% share? No mining equipment was bought for use at this mine,” Justice Kabasa said.
She added: “Is it therefore equitable to award a 50% share in the mine to the defendant? I think not.” The couple married on August 20, 2018, but stopped living together as husband and wife in 2022. The defendant later relocated to Australia, and the court found there was no reasonable prospect of restoring the marriage.
“If this is not evidence of a marriage that has broken down and irretri…
Summary from source