Widow wins back matrimonial home after 20 years

A HARARE widow whose late husband unilaterally and illegally sold the matrimonial home in 1997 last week won it back five years after his demise.

Mrs Maria Sithole initiated the legal battle in 1997 with the assistance of legal practitioners, but when her coffers dried up, Mr Caleb Mucheche of Matsikidze and Mucheche offered her free legal representation.

Her late husband, Mr Matthias Sithole, sold stand number 2395 Glen View, Harare to Ceck Enterprises (Private) Limited in 1997 despite a High Court order barring such a sale.

Mr Sithole died in 2013, but the court battle continued until Wednesday when Justice Mary Dube nullified the sale.

Justice Dube quashed the transfer of the property that was effected in November 1997 under DT9235 /97. She also dismissed a counter-claim by Ceck Enterprises for the eviction of Mrs Sithole from the property and to compel her to surrender title deeds to the property.

“It is accordingly ordered as follows: The respondent’s counter-claim fails,” said Justice Dube.

“The applicant’s claim succeeds. The sale of stand number 2395 Glen View held under Deed of Transfer No. DT4347/ 90 by the first respondent (late Mr Sithole) to the second respondent be and is hereby set aside.

“The transfer of stand number 2395 Glen View from the first respondent to the second respond- ent registered under DT 9235 /97 be and is hereby set aside.”

The Registrar of Deeds was directed to cancel the 1997 title deed bearing the name of Ceck Enterprises.

Justice Dube slapped Ceck Enterprises with an order for costs.

Mr Mucheche said he intervened following a request by the Zimbabwe Widows and Orphans Trust to assist the woman who could not afford legal representation any more after a lengthy court battle.

“At Matsikidze and Mucheche we have been representing orphans and widows for free over the past years,” he said.

“We simply assisted her free of charge after hearing her story.”

Justice Dube said by selling the property in violation of a court order Mr Sithole was contemptuous and the transaction was therefore, tainted and illegal.

“A deliberate disregard of a court order constitutes contempt of court,” she said.

“It has the effect of violating the court’s dignity, repute and author- ity. It is the duty of the court to regulate its own orders. The court cannot sit back and watch while its orders are being disobeyed.

“As a result, the courts regard anything that is done contrary to a court order to be of no force and effect and is regarded as not having been done at all.”

Mr and Mrs Sithole were married, but later separated.

A dispute over the property arose in 1997 when Mr Sithole sold the property without the wife’s consent.

Mrs Sithole was shocked when the “new owners” came to evict her.

She then rushed to court and obtained a provisional order stopping the sale. Mrs Sithole challenged the sale at the magistrates’ court and the parties were ordered to share the property.

Mr Sithole died in 2013 while facing imprisonment for contempt of court.

After his death, Mrs Sithole continued fighting until the High Court finally confirmed her provisional order.