By Nyasha Chuma
Harare— THE High Court has dismissed an application by businessman Wicknell Munodaani Chivayo seeking to strike out claims filed against him by his ex-partner, Sonja Louise Madzikanda regarding the division of assets, spousal maintenance and the dissolution of their union, Express Mail Zim can report.
In a ruling delivered Thursday, Justice Fatima Maxwell rejected Chivayo’s attempt to dismiss the action, characterizing the move as “a veiled attempt to get the assistance of the court to defeat an extant order by consent.”
The legal conflict stems from an earlier agreement between the two parties.
On April 2, 2026, Justice Amy Tsanga granted a consent order that established a framework for resolving their disputes, specifically stipulating that “the question of the proprietary consequences of the termination of the parties’ union shall be adjudicated under case number HCHF 62/2026.”
Justice Maxwell found that by filing a new application on April 27, 2026, to dismiss the claims, Chivayo was attempting “to resile from the agreement that the proprietary consequences of the termination of the parties union shall be adjudicated under case number HCHF 62/2026.”
The court was particularly critical of Chivayo’s failure to disclose the existence of the previous consent order in his filing. “Applicant did not address or refer to the existence of the order in HCHF 892/26,” Justice Maxwell remarked. “I take it as an attempt to pull wool over the court’s eyes.”
Regarding the binding nature of judicial decisions, the judge emphasized: “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.”
Justice Maxwell further invoked the legal doctrine prohibiting litigants from taking contradictory positions, stating that “no person can be allowed to take up two positions that are inconsistent with one another, commonly expressed as to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate.”
The judge also ruled that the specific court rule cited by Chivayo for the dismissal, rule 31(1), was inapplicable because Chivayo had already “compromised his right by consenting that the proprietary issues be determined in case number HCHF 62/26.” Furthermore, the court noted that the rule is intended for cases where an entire action is “frivolous or vexatious,” not for instances “in which part of the claim is valid.”
“I am not persuaded that the summons can be termed totally hopeless to warrant dismissal,” the judge concluded, ultimately dismissing the application with costs.
Advocate Sylvester Hashiti and Edley Mubaiwa represented Chivayo, while Advocate Regina Mabwe represented Madzikanda.
The ruling comes amid public confusion regarding the status of the couple’s relationship. While Madzikanda has claimed on social media that a court previously ruled they were never married, her own legal counsel has stated they are unaware of any such judgment. Madzikanda is currently seeking a $25 million settlement, while Chivayo’s legal team maintains that no marriage existed between the two, who share two children.
