No lobola, no inheritance! . . . ruling brings closure to surviving spouse debate

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
CO-HABITING for decades without any payment of lobola does not upgrade a relationship to a legitimate marriage for purposes of inheritance, the High Court has ruled.

A perception had filtered the country that if a woman stays with a man for years, the lengthy period of stay with the man would qualify her as the surviving spouse in the event of death.

Some lower courts were even swayed into upgrading girlfriends to the status of surviving spouses in estate cases, but High Court judge Justice Happias Zhou, dispelled the claims.

Justice Zhou stripped the surviving spouse’s status off a Harare woman Ms Easter Dzwowa in the estate of the late former Zimbabwe Electoral Commission chief elections officer Lovemore Sekeramayi after evidence of payment of lobola was not produced before the Master of High Court or a magistrate who had dealt with the case.

Ms Dzwowa was staying with Sekeramayi at the time of his death at his Chisipite house, but no proof of lobola payment was produced.

However, Sekeramayi’s legitimate wife Faith and her children engaged the services of Harare lawyer Mr Norman Tsarwe of Tadiwa and Associates in the legal battle.

The family contested the decision and the matter spilled into the High Court.

Justice Zhou set aside the Master of High Court’s decision recognising Ms Dzwowa as a surviving spouse.

The Court also reversed the decision of allocating Ms Dzwowa the Chisipite house in the distribution of the estate of the late Lovemore Sekeramayi.

“It is ordered that the decision of first respondent (Master) declaring that the third respondent (Ms Dzwowa) was a surviving spouse of the deceased Lovemore Chipunza Sekeramayi be and is hereby set aside.

“The allocation of the immovable property located at Number 31 Hindhead Avenue, Chisipite, Harare to the third respondent be and is hereby set aside . . .”

Justice Zhou ordered the Master of High Court to reconvene and call evidence from witnesses regarding the status of the relationship between Ms Dzwowa and the late Sekeramayi.

The judge held that the mere fact that lovers are living together was not proof of a legitimate marriage.

“Living together is not the same as being married . . . the conclusion by the first respondent that the deceased had two wives is therefore not based on any evidence which was placed before him.

“To disinherit a woman who is legally married to the deceased on the basis that she did not live in the house without considering where she would live, is in my view, grossly irregular,” ruled Justice Zhou.

Mr Sekeramayi died of suspected heart failure in his hotel room in Lesotho in 2014.

He was attending a meeting of chief elections officers for electoral management bodies from the SADC region.

Pin It
  • Tachiona Machaka

    I may need to be corrected when I begin to smell a dead rat on how this man lost his life. Only God knows, but hey, munhu haisi huku, anopfuka chete ugoruza kwese,

  • Cecil Roars

    This judgement is a tsunami and in my opinion, an outright misdirection. It seems to define marriage as lobola or a certificate while ignoring the underlying facts of marriage. It puts the plight of children born in such a relationship at risk as it also illegitimatise those kids born out of such unions.
    Judges should not persue their opinions when they must find against such important motions.
    I disagree with this ruling completely because I do it have to be a trained mind to make this observation.