Joint Ownership of Matrimonial Property in Zimbabwe; Insights from Ishemunyoro v Ishemunyoro & Ors 2019(1) ZLR 273(S).

-

 Introduction

Joint ownership of matrimonial property has numerous implications in law. For instance, a couple may register matrimonial property as co-owners, and later on, one party decides to alienate their share forcing the rest of the family to cohabit with strangers in the same house. What does the law say regarding such circumstances where one party acts recklessly in disposing of their share in a matrimonial property without the consent of the other to the detriment of the family? This piece unpacks the law on the subject matter beforehand.

Brief facts of the matter

In the Ishemunyoro case, the Appellant, a woman who worked for the government was offered a rent-to-buy option with respect to certain immovable property in Sinoia Township. For convenience, we shall refer to this as the property. She would pay the purchase price through monthly salary deductions from her employer ie the Government. The property was then registered in the names of the Appellant and her husband. The Appellant alleged that societal and cultural pressures had forced her to register the property as a co-owner with her husband. Without the consent of the Appellant, the husband bound himself as surety to a loan agreement which resulted in the principal defaulting on its obligations. The creditor attached 50% of the husband’s share in the property in question. The Appellant challenged the attachment on the basis that the husband had acted recklessly with the matrimonial property without her consent thus exposing the property to the judicial attachment. She sought the law to be expanded to recognize that property jointly owned cannot be exposed as was in this case without the consent of the co-owner. The courts ruled against her.

Implications of the case

Assuming that parties register immovable property as co-owners with each party owning 50% of the house, either party has an exclusive right to do as they please with their 50% share.  It does not matter even if the property is also the couple’s only matrimonial home. This entails that each co-owner can amongst other things;

·         Sell their 50% share to any person without the consent of their spouse, or

·         Pass their 50% share as security for a loan without the consent of their other spouse, or

·         Donate their 50% share to third parties other than their relatives without the consent of any of their relatives, or

·         Bequeath their 50% share in a will to a third party other than the wife or children of that party without seeking the consent of anyone. The list goes on and on.

In short, one can do as they please with their share in a property (including a matrimonial home) even if it exposes the family to risks of cohabitating with a stranger (the new owner of the 50% share). The immediate legal question as earlier-mentioned is whether the law should intervene and create an exception in cases of joint ownership involving the matrimonial property as was in the Ishemunyoro case. Well, until such a time when the law is amended, the implications of joint ownership have been set out loud and clear.

 

Author

Lincoln Majogo is a registered legal practitioner, conveyancer, and notary public. He works at Mhishi Nkomo Legal Practice where he specializes more in corporate transactions, civil law, debt collection, and commercial law. He writes in his personal capacity.

Disclaimer

The contents and suggestions contained in this article are for information purposes only and are not for the purpose of providing legal advice. If need be, you should contact the author to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem aforementioned herein. Contact details are; Cell: +263 718832210 or LincMajogo1@gmail.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Navigating the complexities of the sole responsibility requirement in UK visa applications by Lincoln Majogo.

-
As economic pressures continue to exert their full might on Zimbabweans, many are emigrating to Europe, the United Kingdom(UK) being a common destination to scout for better employment opportunities. Due to these developments, there is an increase in court cases dealing with applications for custody and guardianship, which are mostly meant to allow those emigrating to travel with their minor children for an indefinite stay. Even with documents of sole custody, many visa applications have been rejected by the UK Home Office. One major reason for rejection is that the parent making the application (Applicant parent) has failed to prove that they have sole responsibility over the minor's upbringing. In this article, we briefly assess what sole responsibility entails in the context of immigration law in the United Kingdom.   Where a parent is already a resident in the UK and intends to bring their minor child along for an indefinite stay, they can do so under 3 broad circumstan...
Read more

PSG’s Hakimi Achraf’s ‘genius’ claims ignite discussion on property rights upon divorce in Zimbabwe.

-
By Lincoln Majogo. For avid football fans like myself, the name Hakim Ashraf is a very familiar name. He is one of the famous faces of Morocco, that took the country's national team to the semi-finals of the World Cup in 2022 after defeating Portugal in the quarter-finals of the competition. Recently, social media has been awash with his pictures whilst kissing his mother with captions titled “genius”. This follows false rumors in which his wife allegedly filed for divorce seeking to claim 50% of his property only to be informed by the court that the football star has no properties registered in his name. It was alleged that a significant chunk of his wealth goes to his mother. Although the wife has reportedly denied filing for divorce, this incident has raised an interesting legal dynamic that has resulted in various interpretations regarding how the courts would handle such a case. The assumption is that the footballer was simply using his mother as a scheme to prevent his wife...
Read more

High Court Judgment pits Children's Rights Activists against Parents over Corporal Punishment.

-
The recent decision of the High Court of Zimbabwe which upheld the lawfulness of corporal punishment on minors by parents and guardians has brought to the fore the discussion on whether corporal punishment should be abolished. For some of us who were raised in a conservative Christian family, Proverbs 13:24 is a familiar verse in our hearts. It says ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ and for people like us who constantly committed acts of misconduct whilst growing up, our parents made sure that the rod would pay regular visits on our buttocks, legs, hands, and thighs. Of course, there are instances where it went out of hand but l can gladly say the fear of the rod, kept me out of harm’s way. The recent High Court judgment in State v Yeukai Graham Mutero HH178-23 has confirmed that corporal punishment or rather beating up children as a way of disciplining them by parents or guardians is legal. In this case, the accused who was the mother of the deceased administered corporal punish...
Read more