Court Rejects Chivayo Application in Divorce Battle

The High Court has rejected businessman Wicknell Munodaani Chivayo’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit by his ex-wife, Sonja Louise Madzikanda, who is seeking a division of assets, spousal maintenance, and the formal dissolution of their marriage or civil partnership.

In a judgement dated 18 June 2026, Justice Fatima Maxwell found that Chivayo’s application under rule 31(1) of the High Court rules amounted to “a veiled attempt to get the assistance of the court to defeat an extant order by consent.”

Chivayo was represented by Advocates Sylvester Hashiti and Edley Mubaiwa (instructed by Mpofu Mazhata Chambers), while Advocate Regina Mabwe (instructed by Mahuni Gidiri Law Chambers) appeared for Madzikanda.

The dispute dates back to March 2026, when Chivayo sought urgent child access pending the divorce proceedings filed by Madzikanda.

This resulted in an April 2, 2026, consent order by Justice Amy Tsanga, which not only settled child access but also recorded the parties’ agreement to resolve their property dispute under the main divorce case (HCHF 62/2026).

Justice Maxwell ruled that Chivayo’s April 27 application to throw out the civil partnership, asset division, and maintenance claims was an attempt to resile from the binding agreement that all proprietary consequences of the split be adjudicated under the divorce matter.

“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.

“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,” Justice Maxwell said.

Justice Maxwell invoked the legal principle against taking inconsistent positions, ruling that the court cannot support a stance that contradicts the agreement to handle property issues under the main case, as no one is allowed to “blow hot and cold” or argue both sides.

Justice Maxwell also ruled that High Court Rule 31(1) did not apply, stating that while the rule allows for the dismissal of frivolous lawsuits, Chivayo gave up his right to use it when he formally consented to settle the property disputes within the main case.

Justice Maxwell noted that while Chivayo didn’t challenge the custody or maintenance claims, the parties strongly disagreed on how the Marriages Act applied to their situation, prompting Madzikanda to seek constitutional recourse.

“I am not persuaded that the summons can be termed totally hopeless to warrant dismissal.”

Justice Maxwell dismissed the application with costs.