Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Facts: Nhiwatiwa V Nhiwatiwa & 2 Ors (HH 420 of 2020, HC 8557 of 2018) (2020) ZWHHC 420 (25 June 2020

    Uploaded by

    Colias Dube
    - Byron and Melinda were in a civil marriage with three minor children. Melinda lost her job and struggles to support the children on $500 per month. Byron got a higher paying job in South Africa. - The issues are whether Byron must still support the children, if Zimbabwean civil law applies to Byron in South Africa, and if Byron intentionally stopped supporting the children. - Zimbabwean law states that the best interests of children are paramount. A maintenance court has jurisdiction and reciprocal agreements allow enforcement of orders across countries. The conclusion is that Melinda should file for child maintenance as the laws protecting children were violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Facts: Nhiwatiwa V Nhiwatiwa & 2 Ors (HH 420 of 2020, HC 8557 of 2018) (2020) ZWHHC 420 (25 June 2020

    Uploaded by

    Colias Dube
    68 views5 pages
    - Byron and Melinda were in a civil marriage with three minor children. Melinda lost her job and struggles to support the children on $500 per month. Byron got a higher paying job in South Africa. - The issues are whether Byron must still support the children, if Zimbabwean civil law applies to Byron in South Africa, and if Byron intentionally stopped supporting the children. - Zimbabwean law states that the best interests of children are paramount. A maintenance court has jurisdiction and reciprocal agreements allow enforcement of orders across countries. The conclusion is that Melinda should file for child maintenance as the laws protecting children were violated.

    Original Title

    maka assign

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Byron and Melinda were in a civil marriage with three minor children. Melinda lost her job and struggles to support the children on $500 per month. Byron got a higher paying job in South Africa. - The issues are whether Byron must still support the children, if Zimbabwean civil law applies to Byron in South Africa, and if Byron intentionally stopped supporting the children. - Zimbabwean law states that the best interests of children are paramount. A maintenance court has jurisdiction and reciprocal agreements allow enforcement of orders across countries. The conclusion is that Melinda should file for child maintenance as the laws protecting children were violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    68 views5 pages

    Facts: Nhiwatiwa V Nhiwatiwa & 2 Ors (HH 420 of 2020, HC 8557 of 2018) (2020) ZWHHC 420 (25 June 2020

    Uploaded by

    Colias Dube
    - Byron and Melinda were in a civil marriage with three minor children. Melinda lost her job and struggles to support the children on $500 per month. Byron got a higher paying job in South Africa. - The issues are whether Byron must still support the children, if Zimbabwean civil law applies to Byron in South Africa, and if Byron intentionally stopped supporting the children. - Zimbabwean law states that the best interests of children are paramount. A maintenance court has jurisdiction and reciprocal agreements allow enforcement of orders across countries. The conclusion is that Melinda should file for child maintenance as the laws protecting children were violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Facts

    -Byron Zuze and Melinda are in a civil marriage

    -They have three minor children who are still in the primary education

    -Melinda lost her job and she does piece jobs that she raises 500 dollars a month, and is
    struggling with the upkeep of the children

    -Byron got a job in South Africa with a big pharmacy in Johannesburg, was offered three times
    the salary that he was earning in Zimbabwe which is equivalent to US$6000 take home.

    -Byron was initially remitting US$1500 per month for the upkeep of the family but in June 2017,
    he stopped.

    Issues

    -Whether or not, the children were supposed to be maintained.

    -whether or not the civil laws have jurisdiction over people who have moved outside Zimbabwe.

    -whether or not Byron stopped sending money for the upkeep of the children intentionally.

    Rule of law

    Nhiwatiwa v Nhiwatiwa & 2 Ors (HH 420 of 2020, HC 8557 of 2018) [2020] ZWHHC 420 (25
    June 2020

     E v E, R v R and M v M, case numbers 12583/17; 20739/18 and 5954/18

    Interpretation

    -Whether or not, the children were supposed to be maintained?

    Section 19 of the new constitution falls under national objectives and speaks of children, it states
    that the state must adopt policies and measures to ensure that in matters relating to children, the
    best interests of children concerned is paramount. Section 81(2) of the new Zimbabwean
    constitution submits that, a child’s interests are paramount in every matter concerning a child, if
    further summons the courts that, the constitution should make sure that, the constitution
    should ,make sure that, whatever judgement passed, it should be in the best interest of the child.

    Application

    -whether or not the civil laws have jurisdiction over people who have moved outside Zimbabwe?

    Melinda and Byron had been married under a civil marriage. The question at hand is was Byron
    supposed to maintain the children. Under the maintenance Act chapter 3, it states that, every
    magistrate’s court shall within its area of jurisdiction be a maintenance court for its purpose of
    this Act. This highlights that, this court has the jurisdiction to hear the Melinda case. In the case
    of Byron, who is outside the country, can still pay maintenance if the country has a reciprocal
    agreement with Zimbabwe. The courts within that country confirm it mutatis mutandis, that is
    the necessary alterations to suit their legal system or currency. Section 5 (1) of the constitution
    submits that, where an application is made to a maintenance court in Zimbabwe for a
    maintenance order against any person and it is proved that the person is a resident in a
    reciprocating country, the court may in the absence of that person, if after hearing the evidence it
    is satisfied of the justice of the application, make any such order as it might made if the
    summons had been duly made on that persons and he had failed to appear in the hearing, but in
    that case the order shall be provisional only and shall have no effect unless and until confirmed
    by a competent court in that, reciprocating country. it is important to note that, South Africa
    Enforcement of maintenance orders act, makes it possible for a maintenance order from a foreign
    country to be enforced.

    Conclusion

    I would highly recommend, Melinda to file for maintenance as all laws that protects children
    were violated.

    QUESTION 2

    Facts
    -they married under customary law

    -their marriage was not registered

    -they bought properties together

    -they agreed to a devorce

    -they have children together

    Issues

    Whether or not their marriage is legal

    Whether or not the use of juju was valid to file for divorce

    Whether or not the properties shall be shared equally

    Whether or not they will have a shared custody

    Rule of law

    Customary marriages act

    Magistrate court Act Chapter 7:10

    Matrimonial causes Act

    Application of rule of law.

    According to Ncube, children born to parents are illegitimate. This is because the marriage will
    not be registered as required by s(3)1 of the customary marriage act which propounds,” subject
    to this section no marriage contracted according to customary law including the case where the
    man takes the wife of a widow or widows of a diseased relative shall be regarded as valid
    marriage unless such marriage is solemnized in terms of this Act. This therefore means that, the
    fact that, Gwara and chidos affair was unregistered rendered it an illegal or invalid marriage.
    However according to s 3(5) of the customary marriage Act, a marriage contracted according to
    customary law which is not valid marriage in terms of this section shall, for purposes of
    customary law custom relating to the status guardianship custody and rights of succession of the
    children of such marriage be regarded as a valid marriage…for purposes of customary law, such
    children presumed to be legitimate and falling under the guardianship of their father.

    Conlusion

    The property was going to be shared equally as the marriage was customarily legal and children
    were to remain under the guardianship of their father.

    QUESTION 3

    Marriage is a legal or formal union of 2 people, a man and woman who unites their lives legally,
    economically and emotionally and become husband and wife. There are three types of marriages
    in Zimbabwe which are monogamous marriage which is provided for in marriage act
    Chapter5:11, polygamous marriage which is provided for under customary marriages act chapter
    5:07and unregistered customary law union. Marriage should happen when three essentials which
    are consent, capacity, and legality are there and thus provided by the constitution.

    Consent

    Consensus is the fundamental requirement of entering into a marriage. There must be agreement
    between the two people who are entering into marriage and for emphasis on the ceremony, the
    marriage officer will ask the two if they are in agreement and if they are ready to be husband and
    wife. The most be willing to marry each other but consensus might be denied by undue
    influence, duress .If the two lacks agreement, the marriage can be terminated according to
    section 78(3) of the constitution which submits that, ’no person maybe compelled to enter into
    marriage against their will,’ In the case of Smith v Smith, the marriage was cancelled after the
    court realized that, the marriage was accompanied by duress as the girl was being forced by her
    father and the boy. Hence thus consent is the backbone of marriage.

    Capacity

    It is a fundamental issue when two are to enter into a marriage. People who do not have the
    capacity to enter into marriage cannot marry. People who are mentally ill, and those under the
    age of eighteen lacks the capacity to enter into marriage, as proven by chapter 78 of the
    constitution.
    Legality

    It is a common cause that, an illegal marriage is void. For marriage to be considered valid, it
    must be a lawful marriage. Marriage between people, brothers, sisters, adoptive parents and their
    children and people of the same sex are prohibited and deemed unlawful. Section 78 of the
    constitution prohibits marriages between people of the same sex as it says, ‘persons of the same
    sex are prohibited from marrying each other, the prohibition of same sex marriage s was seen in
    the case of Corbet v Corbet, where a man who had gone under transgender was disallowed to
    get married, as the court judged that, he was still a man, and it was marriage between man and
    men, so the marriage was invalidated. The marriage of people who are already married was
    aprohibited in the case of Sibanda v Sibanda where the court ruled that, if married under
    marriage act, one cannot enter into another marriage of whatever form whilst the particular
    marriage is still subsiding.

    You might also like