Archive logo
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel
Archive logo
← Home

1992 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

VARETA V VARETA & ORS
1992 (2) ZLR 1 (H)
IN RE MASENDEKE
1992 (2) ZLR 5 (S)
S V MASIWA
1992 (2) ZLR 7 (S)
EDWARDS V CHIZEMA
1992 (2) ZLR 14 (S)
S V KAPURIRA
1992 (2) ZLR 17 (S)
BOADI V BOADI & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 22 (H)
GOMBA V MAKWARIMBA
1992 (2) ZLR 26 (S)
MUNYAI V CHIKASHA
1992 (2) ZLR 31 (S)
SEVA & ORS V DZUDA
1992 (2) ZLR 34 (S)
S V CHAITEZVI
1992 (2) ZLR 38 (S)
CHIMHOSVA & ORS V VICE-CHANCELLOR (UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE) & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 45 (H)
ROTHMANS OF PALL MALL (ZIMBABWE) LIMITED V JACKSON
1992 (2) ZLR 50 (H)
VUNDU V COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
1992 (2) ZLR 59 (H)
S V MUSHAYANDEBVU
1992 (2) ZLR 62 (S)
S V MPOFU
1992 (2) ZLR 68 (H)
CARINUS V DU TOIT
1992 (2) ZLR 71 (H)
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HARARE & ANOR V MAGAMA & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 75 (S)
S V AITKEN
1992 (2) ZLR 84 (S)
MANDUNA V MUTIZWA
1992 (2) ZLR 90 (S)
MAVROS V PACHYDAKIS
1992 (2) ZLR 94 (S)
S V MTOMBENI
1992 (2) ZLR 104 (S)
S V SITHOLE
1992 (2) ZLR 110 (H)
S V KEARNS
1992 (2) ZLR 116 (S)
S V STOUYANNIDES
1992 (2) ZLR 126 (S)
SHAW V SHAW & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 134 (S)
GOUS V THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS
1992 (2) ZLR 142 (H)
CHIPFUYAMITI V NYAJINA & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 148 (H)
S V JUMBE
1992 (2) ZLR 153 (H)
S V MLAMBO
1992 (2) ZLR 156 (S)
S V CHARUMA
1992 (2) ZLR 162 (H)
TOFF'S RESTAURANT (PVT) LTD V PROMAVEN PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD
1992 (2) ZLR 164 (S)
CONJWAYO & ORS V MNANGAGWA & ORS
1992 (2) ZLR 171 (H)
CHIOMBA V CHIOMBA
1992 (2) ZLR 197 (S)
S V SHAVA
1992 (2) ZLR 204 (H)
S V CHIGOVA
1992 (2) ZLR 206 (H)
S V MUNEMO
1992 (2) ZLR 222 (S)
S V MOYO
1992 (2) ZLR 228 (S)
S V NDHLOVU
1992 (2) ZLR 231 (S)
S V NEMUTENZI
1992 (2) ZLR 233 (H)
MATANGI V KUMBULA & ORS
1992 (2) ZLR 241 (H)
DEAN & ANOR V CHRISTEN
1992 (2) ZLR 248 (H)
CITY OF HARARE V D & P INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 254 (S)
IN RE NDIMANDE - ATTORNEY V GENERAL V NDIMANDE
1992 (2) ZLR 259 (S)
HAYNES V MINISTER OF DEFENCE & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 262 (H)
CHAIRMAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANOR V HALL
1992 (2) ZLR 271 (S)
S V CHIPERE
1992 (2) ZLR 276 (S)
S V MUKWEZVA
1992 (2) ZLR 283 (S)
BANGANI V MUFWO & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 290 (S)
PRAKASH V WILSON & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 294 (S)
FELDMAN V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
1992 (2) ZLR 304 (S)
MUZABAZI V JAMBAWU & ORS
1992 (2) ZLR 314 (H)
MUJAWO V CHOGUGUDZA
1992 (2) ZLR 321 (S)
S V LIVER
1992 (2) ZLR 323 (H)
GURURE V RUSIKE
1992 (2) ZLR 334 (H)
S V DUBE
1992 (2) ZLR 338 (S)
HORA V TAFAMBA
1992 (2) ZLR 348 (S)
KNOWER V MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS & ANCHOR
1992 (2) ZLR 356 (S)
S V MUBAIWA & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 362 (S)
BARCLAYS BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD V AIR ZIMBABWE CORPORATION
1992 (2) ZLR 377 (H)
S V RAMOTALE
1992 (2) ZLR 397 (S)
GUMBO V NORTON-SELOUS RURAL COUNCIL
1992 (2) ZLR 403 (S)
RITCHIE V DELTA PENSION FUND
1992 (2) ZLR 413 (S)
ZIJENA V MAPHOSA
1992 (2) ZLR 423 (S)
MHLANGA V MTENENGARI & ANOR
1992 (2) ZLR 431 (S)
S V SIBANDA
1992 (2) ZLR 438 (S)
PEDZISA V CHIKONYORA
1992 (2) ZLR 445 (S)
SAVANHU V POSTMASTER-GENERAL
1992 (2) ZLR 455 (H)
S V AITKEN
1992 (2) ZLR 463 (S)
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel

CHIOMBA v CHIOMBA 1992 (2) ZLR 197 (S)

Case details
Citation
1992 (2) ZLR 197 (S)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
Supreme Court, Harare
Judge
Manyarara JA, Korsah JA & Ebrahim JA
Heard
12 September 1992
Judgment
24 September 1992
Counsel
E Chatikobo, for the appellant. R Harvey, for the respondent.
Case Type
Civil appeal
Annotations
Link to case annotations

Flynote

Family law — maintenance after divorce — whether wife entitled to maintenance until death or remarriage if able to work and support herself

Headnote

When a woman applies for maintenance at the time of divorce in terms of s 7(1)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1985 the criteria to be applied are set out in s 7(3) of the Act. It used to be thought that the where an "innocent" woman divorced her husband on the ground of his misconduct she was entitled to maintenance until her death or remarriage, whether or not she was able to work and support herself. This is not the position today. The changed attitude of the court has been brought about by the emergence of the working wife and "woman's liberation".

When deciding upon the issue of maintenance for women who are able to work these general guidelines, enunciated by Professor Hahlo concerning South African law, may be used in Zimbabwe as they are in accordance with the intention underlying the provisions relating to maintenance in the Matrimonial Causes Act:

  • Marriage can no longer be seen as providing a woman a bread ticket for life. A marriage certificate is not a guarantee of maintenance after the marriage has been dissolved.

  • Young women who worked before marriage and are able to work and support themselves after divorce will not be awarded maintenance if they have no young children. If a young woman has given up work she will be awarded short term maintenance to tide her over until she finds a new job.

  • Middle-aged women who have devoted themselves for years to the management of the household and care of the children should be given "rehabilitative" maintenance for a period long enough to enable them to be trained or retrained for a job or a profession.

  • Elderly women who have been married for a long time and are too old to now go out and earn a living and are unlikely to remarry will require permanent maintenance.

In the present case the court held that the wife was not entitled to be maintained because there was an even balance between the parties regarding their responsibilities, prospects, youth and income after the payment of maintenance.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.