Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Munyaradzi Mafaro, post: 82312, member: 636"] A massive maintenance award got slashed by the top court. The Supreme Court overturned part of a ruling favoring a deceased man's first wife. Esther Chitando was originally granted over 345 thousand US dollars from the estate of Kumbirai Manyika Kangai. The judges found the lower court made errors in its calculation. Justice Hlekani Mwayera delivered the decision with a panel of colleagues. The court agreed that Chitando was indeed a lawful surviving spouse. These rejected claims by the later wife, Miriam Rehwai Kangai, and other appellants. They had argued that an old customary divorce called gupuro had occurred. The justices dismissed the divorce argument completely. They noted you cannot be divorced if you were never married. The appellants' own story confirmed a marriage existed. No solid proof of its dissolution was ever provided to the court. A key affidavit from the deceased's brother was thrown out. It was considered unreliable hearsay evidence. The procedural flaws made it inadmissible for proving that a divorce happened. While her spouse's status was confirmed, her payout got reduced. The Supreme Court ruled that the maintenance amount was mistakenly high. The High Court used incorrect facts about the estate's value and the beneficiaries' ages. The estate itself is worth more than seven million dollars. It includes two farms and assets held by a private company named Luna Estates. The higher court had ordered the property transfer from one farm to Chitando. This property transfer order was canceled. The judges reinforced corporate law principles. The company's assets are separate from the shareholders' personal estate. Miriam Kangai could not give away property she did not personally own. The case now goes back to the High Court for a new calculation. The justices instructed a fair balance in the new award. It must consider the estate's debts, other beneficiaries, and Chitando's actual needs. This long-running family legal fight has sparked debate across the country. Some see it as a win for protecting widows under customary law. Others view it as a draining saga over a substantial inheritance. The final maintenance figure remains undecided. [/QUOTE]

Name