HARARE
—
In
a
precedent-setting
ruling,
the
Supreme
Court
of
Zimbabwe
has
upheld
the
enforcement
of
a
United
Kingdom
divorce
judgment,
allowing
Pauline
Mutsa
Makoni
to
retain
ownership
of
properties
awarded
to
her
by
an
English
court,
including
the
couple’s
matrimonial
home
in
Harare.
The
judgment
overturns
a
controversial
2023
decision
by
the
High
Court
of
Zimbabwe
that
had
rejected
the
registration
and
enforcement
of
the
foreign
order
on
the
grounds
that
it
was
contrary
to
Zimbabwean
public
policy.
Pauline
Makoni
had
sought
recognition
of
a
divorce
and
financial
settlement
granted
by
the
High
Court
of
Justice
(Family
Division)
in
England
in
December
2014.
Her
former
husband,
Julius
Tawona
Makoni
—
a
former
CEO
of
NMB
Bank
and
Anglican
Bishop
of
Manicaland
—
had
opposed
the
application,
arguing
that
the
English
court’s
order
stripped
him
of
his
properties
in
Zimbabwe
and
rendered
him
“homeless,”
which
he
claimed
was
inconsistent
with
local
laws.
However,
the
Supreme
Court
firmly
rejected
that
argument,
declaring
in
its
unanimous
ruling
that
“the
English
Court
applied
equitable
principles
similar
to
those
applicable
in
Zimbabwe,”
and
that
the
award
was
a
direct
consequence
of
Makoni’s
failure
to
make
full
and
frank
disclosure
of
his
assets
during
the
UK
proceedings.
The
couple,
who
were
married
in
Harare
in
1983,
had
lived
in
both
Zimbabwe
and
the
United
Kingdom
over
the
course
of
their
marriage.
They
separated
in
2010,
and
Pauline
filed
for
divorce
in
the
UK
later
that
year.
Following
extensive
proceedings
—
during
which
both
parties
were
represented
by
“highly
experienced
specialist
solicitors
and
barristers,”
according
to
the
judgment
—
the
UK
court
issued
a
decree
nisi
in
2013
and
a
final
decree
absolute
on
December
18,
2014.
As
part
of
the
financial
settlement,
the
English
court
awarded
Pauline
the
London
matrimonial
home,
the
Harare
home
at
5
Rietfontein
Close
in
Chisipite,
and
a
stand
in
Chishawasha
Hills.
Julius
Makoni
was
awarded
other
properties
and
offshore
accounts,
including
his
interest
in
the
Cornerstone
Trust
and
shares
in
NMBZ,
which
the
court
found
he
had
attempted
to
conceal.
The
English
court
found
that
Makoni
had
failed
to
disclose
his
full
financial
interests,
which
justified
the
outcome.
It
relied
on
English
matrimonial
law,
notably
the
case
NG
v
SG
(Appeal–Non-Disclosure),
which
states
that
“the
court
must
be
astute
that
a
non-discloser
should
not
be
able
to
procure
a
result
from
his
non-disclosure
better
than
that
which
would
be
ordered
if
the
truth
were
told.”
The
Zimbabwean
Supreme
Court
echoed
this
reasoning,
stating
that
Makoni’s
“material
non-disclosure
constitutes
a
lie.
It
is
a
wrong.
Our
courts
do
not
reward
the
perpetrator
of
a
wrong.”
Makoni
had
preemptively
filed
an
application
in
the
Zimbabwean
High
Court
in
2015
seeking
a
declaration
that
the
UK
judgment
was
unenforceable
in
Zimbabwe
—
specifically
objecting
to
the
transfer
of
the
Harare
home.
The
High
Court
ruled
in
his
favor
in
March
2023,
finding
that
the
English
court
lacked
jurisdiction
and
that
the
award
was
“contrary
to
public
policy”
because
it
allegedly
left
him
without
a
place
to
live.
But
the
Supreme
Court
found
those
conclusions
to
be
legally
unsound
and
factually
incorrect.
“It
was
a
gross
misdirection
for
the
court
a
quo
to
relate
to
[the
issue
of
jurisdiction],”
wrote
Justice
Samuel
Kudya,
who
delivered
the
judgment.
He
noted
that
Makoni
had
not
challenged
the
English
court’s
jurisdiction
during
the
original
proceedings
and
had,
in
fact,
attempted
to
appeal
the
judgment
there
—
an
appeal
that
was
later
dismissed
for
failure
to
comply
with
court
conditions.
The
Supreme
Court
held
that
the
High
Court
had
erred
in
entertaining
the
application
for
a
declaratory
order
at
all.
“All
that
the
respondent
(Makoni)
needed
to
do
was
to
bide
his
time
until
the
appellant
(Pauline)
lodged
a
recognition
and
enforcement
application,”
the
Court
said,
adding
that
“the
effect
of
the
application
and
the
order
granted
by
the
court
a
quo
is
that
the
applicant
accepted
and
the
court
a
quo
found
that
only
the
award
of
the
Harare
matrimonial
home
was
contrary
to
public
policy.
The
corollary…
is
that
the
remaining
portions
of
the
order
were
not
contrary
to
public
policy.”
Justice
Kudya
emphasised
that
the
UK
court
had
thoroughly
evaluated
the
property
and
financial
holdings
of
both
parties
and
found
that
Makoni
stood
to
benefit
more
overall
—
despite
his
complaints.
“The
benefit
that
accrued
to
the
appellant
was
just
under
US$500,000,
while
the
benefit
to
the
respondent
was
much
higher,”
the
court
noted.
It
also
listed
extensive
assets
that
Makoni
retained
or
controlled,
including
shares
in
NMBZ
valued
at
over
US$1.3
million,
properties
in
Zimbabwe
and
the
UK,
and
offshore
accounts
with
“hundreds
of
thousands
of
pounds.”
The
Supreme
Court’s
order
reads
in
part:
>
“(a)
The
final
divorce
order…
confirming
the
decree
nisi
together
with
the
judgment
of
Justice
Richard
Robinson
and
the
financial
order…
be
and
is
hereby
recognised
for
purposes
of
enforcement.
>
(b)
Julius
Tawona
Makoni
shall
sign
all
relevant
documents
to
effect
transfer
of
properties
awarded
to
Pauline
Mutsa
Makoni…
within
7
days
of
this
order,
failing
which
the
Sheriff
is
authorised
to
sign
such
documents
and
effect
such
transfers.
>
(c)
Costs
of
the
transfers
shall
be
borne
by
Julius
Tawona
Makoni.”
Makoni
was
also
ordered
to
pay
the
legal
costs
of
both
applications.
Legal
experts
say
the
case
sets
a
critical
precedent
in
Zimbabwe
for
the
recognition
of
foreign
divorce
judgments
and
financial
orders.
It
confirms
that
Zimbabwean
courts
will
respect
such
rulings
where
the
foreign
court
had
jurisdiction
and
where
the
principles
applied
do
not
violate
domestic
public
policy.
The
court
concluded:
“The
English
law
is
strikingly
similar
to
our
own.
No
injustice
was
therefore
occasioned
to
the
respondent
by
the
application
of
English
law.”
Advocate
Thabani
Mpofu
appeared
for
Pauline
Makoni,
while
Julius
Makoni
was
represented
by
Prof
Welshman
Ncube
and
Advocate
Lewis
Uriri.