The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe upheld the reinstatement of magistrate Sandra Mupindu as a trustee of the Shamba Charashika Bvumavaranda Trust after dismissing her estranged husband Simon Mupindu’s attempt to appeal against a High Court ruling that had nullified his “procedurally flawed amendment” to the trust deed.
The Supreme Court ruled that the purported amendment to the appointment of Cathrene Chitopota as a trustee is fraudulent in nature.
Mupindu is divorcing his wife Sandra after leaving her for his former intern, Chitopota.
Simon is the one who filed for divorce and the matter is still pending.
Sandra challenged her removal from the family trust, and the High Court ruled in her favor declaring the 2023 amendment that replaced her with Chitopota as trustee unlawful and void.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Mupindu filed an appeal on 30 May 2025 at the Supreme Court.
Since it was submitted late, the Registrar rejected it.
This led him to seek the Court’s permission to file the appeal out of time.
He applied for condonation of the late filing and requested an extension on 2 June 2025.
Mupindu cited Sandra Mupindu and the Registrar of Deeds as respondents.
In the application, through his lawyer, Mupindu argued that the brief delay in filing the appeal—just four days after the appeal period—was due to a miscalculation based on the date the judgment was received, not delivered and was worsened by internal miscommunication.
Mupindu argued there were strong grounds for success as the Trust’s founder had the legal right to remove and appoint Trustees.
He said the lower court erred by overlooking relevant legal precedents and failing to assess the requirements for the declaratory order sought by Sandra.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2025, Supreme Court Justices Tendai Uchena, Nicholas Mathonsi, and Joseph Musakwa dismissed the application, noting that the applicants had attempted to file an appeal on 30 May 2025—well after the appeal period had lapsed.
They then filed this application on 2 June 2025.
The applicants cited a miscalculation of the deadline and a communication breakdown with their legal counsel as the cause of the delay.
However, given that Mupindu is an experienced legal practitioner and leads a law firm, the court found such an oversight difficult to excuse.
Furthermore, the three judges ruled that the preliminary points Mupindu intended to appeal were without merit.”
Regrettably, it must be observed that the preliminary points raised a quo which the applicants seek to appeal against are devoid of merit.
Officers of the court are enjoined to assist in the proper administration of justice, by not impeding it with objections which are manifestly devoid of merit.
“It is common cause that the first respondent was a Trustee of the 2014 Trust. In the wake of the breaking down of the marriage, the first applicant (Simon Mupindu) caused a unilateral amendment removing the first respondent (Sandra Mupindu) from being a Trustee, which she challenged through the application for a declaratory order,” read part of the judgment.
The Judges said to assess if a Trustee was properly removed, first check the Deed of Trust for a removal process.
If none is provided, common law or statutory rules apply, allowing courts to step in to protect the trust and its beneficiaries.
The Supreme Court found the purported amendment regarding Chitopota’s trusteeship to be a fraudulent act.
“Thus, the first applicant’s act of removing the first respondent from being a Trustee of the Trust, without the approval of the beneficiaries was in direct violation of the intrinsic framework of the Trust. The purported amendment was also procured through fraudulent means. The first applicant purported that the first respondent consented to her removal from the position of a Trustee,” read part of the judgement.
Mupindu’s application was dismissed with costs.
“With the odds so decisively against the applicants’ prospects of success on appeal, I can find no basis upon which to ‘grant the applicants’ application.”
In view of the finding that the intended appeal has no prospects of success on appeal it is ordered that: “The application be and is hereby dismissed with costs.”
