KARIMATSENGA V TSVANGIRAI & ANOR 2012 (2) ZLR 195 (H)

E Samkange, for the applicant
T Mpofu, for the first and second respondents
A M Guwuriro, for the third respondent
No appearance for the fourth respondent

Case Type

Urgent application

Annotations

Not supplied Annotations Link to case annotations

Flynote

Court — High Court — jurisdiction — inherent jurisdiction — court not given jurisdiction to exercise powers given to another court or official in terms of a statute

Family law — husband and wife — marriage — objection to by third party — how should be made

Headnote

The applicant and the first respondent were lovers. The applicant became pregnant by him. She claimed that thereafter he sent his representatives to the applicant's family and married her in terms of customary law. The applicant proceeded to the first respondent's rural home where she stayed with the latter's mother for two months. When the applicant was 7— months pregnant she suffered a miscarriage and lost the baby. Subsequently, she learned that the first respondent was going to marry the second respondent in accordance with the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11]. Fearing that if the first respondent were to marry the second respondent in terms of the general law she would cease to be his wife by operation of law, the applicant sought an urgent order to stop the proposed marriage. The first respondent, although admitting a relationship with the applicant, denied having married her in terms of customary law. The respondents raised a number of defences, the first of which was that the court had no jurisdiction to give the order applied for. Their argument was that the legislature had appointed through statute the persons who should deal with an objection to a marriage. The applicant's argument was that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to deal with all matters.

Held, that each court is a creature of statute, and its powers are created and defined by statute. If one court were to claim that it has same inherent power to overrule another court, instead of a power specifically created by statute, in effect it would be claiming the power to nullify the body of statute law which specifically relates to the establishment and powers of each of the civil courts in the country. The High Court cannot invoke its inherent powers to take away powers which have been given to another court or person in an Act of Parliament.

Continue beyond the preview