Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Meamui Georgina Kongwa Vs Kekelwa Samuel Kongwa Caz 29 May o
Meamui Georgina Kongwa Vs Kekelwa Samuel Kongwa Caz 29 May o
.... ,· ..~
BETWEEN:· . ··~
APPELLANT
. l
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
' ~.
172
'
-J 2-
8. Eves v Bves (1975} 3 All BR, 768
9. Goodman v Gallant (1986} 1 All BR, 311
10. Violet Kambole Tembo v David La.stone Tembo (2004} ZR, 79
The background to this matter was ably captured by the learned Judge
With the exception of the first year of the marriage, the parties mostly
lived apart. The Respondent was initially detained in India for one and
The marriage was dissolved on }st November, 2001 by the local court
-J3-
Apparently, after the divorce, the parties continued to relate until May,
2010 when the Respondent wrote a letter stating that, that was the
property of the Appellant since she had bought it from the Respondent
Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the local court, the Respondent then
denovo.
gave the Respondent the Kalundu house, while the Appellant was
given the two Ibex Hill houses which were on the same plot. The
magistrate ordered that the rest of the properties would go to the party
in whose name they were. This was done in order to give the parties a
clean break.
t
-J 4-
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision and she appealed to
follows:
of the Appellant, information which had just come to the knowledge of the
3. The magistrate ignored the evidence that the Respondent and the Appellant
were married for only one year after which the Appellant deserted and he
. had never lived in Zambia nor had the Respondent lived with him in South
Africa since.
4. The magistrate decided the customary law marriage without sitting with
assessors who are experts in Lozi customary laws of marriage and divorce,
and never applied anything from it particularly since she is not Lozi herself.
~'
of English law and property settlement without addressing her mind to
~
\: 6. The magistrate ignored the evidence that the Appellant did not contribute
~li anything to the acquisition and development of real property nor the welfare
r
f
j::
of the family.
when buying the properties in spite of glaring evidence that the Respondent
had paid for the properties without any contribution by the Appellant who
-J 5-
had already written several letters of divorce which she presented to court
8. The magistrate failed to hold that the properties were not family properties
the Appellant from the Appellant himself to indicate that it was purely a
value of the same contrary to the cases she cited: Watchel v Watchel and
Gissing v Gissing.
evidence that the parties lived a luxurious life in the one year of marriage
11. The magistrate ignored completely the monies the Appellant still owes the
Respondent as follows:
-J 6-
Respondent's submission).·
12. The magistrate misdirected herself when she held that both parties were
bringing into the family something they were earning from their salaries.
(1) The issue of the learned magistrate recusing herself was not raised in
the court below; reliance was placed on the case of Mususu Kalenga
Enterprises 1 where the Supreme Court held that it was incompetent for
a party to raise on appeal an issue not raised in the court below. further
that perusal of the Judgment did not reveal any obvious bias of the
learned magistrate.
(2) The learned magistrate could not be faulted in her finding that the
divorce certificate. This was supported by the fact that the parties had a
child in 1986 and that there was no basis for the Appellant to obtain a
divorce certificate in 200 1 if the marriage had been dissolved in 1984. i··
(3) The fact that the learned magistrate did not sit with Lozi assessors was
not a ground for setting aside the Judgment in the absence of proof that
considered the case of Martha Mwiya v Alex Mwiya~ and also took into
(4) The learned magistrate took into consideration the Mwiya2 case and the
was need for the court to take into account the contributions by each
(5) The issue of whether or not the Respondent built up the success of the
Appellant was not relevant and in any case the Respondent had not
the family, relying on the Chibwe3 case, the Judge was of the view that
the court must take into account all the relevant circumstances of the
case.
The learned magistrate as would be shown from the record, noted that
there was periodic exchange of money between the parties, although the
rentals from the Kalundu house, which were said to have contributed to
According to the learned Judge, it was therefore not true that the
(6) As regards the intention of the Appellant when buying the Kalundu
property, all the facts coupled with the transactions and exchanges
between the parties and the lack of a clear contract of sale, shows that
their transactions over the Kalundu house were not clear cut.
)
-J 8-
That this was coupled with the finding that the Appellant was collecting
As for the Ibex Hill property, the Judge found that it was acquired by the
Appellant and was owned by her and as held in the case of Anne Scott
v OUver Scott4 - •any property purchased by one spouse with his or her
matrimonial property.
That the learned magistrate took into account that both parties
contributed to the Kalundu and Ibex Hill houses despite both properties
being in the Appellant's name and arrived at the decision that justice
demanded that they share the same as family property in line with equity
The learned Judge was of the further view that the Respondent was
into account that the two houses comprising the Ibex Hill property are
on the same plot and the need for the parties to have a clean break, it
was appropriate that the Ibex Hill property should remain with the
(7) On the issue of distribution of the property without evidence of the value,
the learned Judge was of the view that the onus was on the parties and
may, the Judge observed that the case before the magistrate was an
-J9-
ap{>eal from the local court which was properly before it. That it would
determine the matter based on the value of the property as that would
lead to injustice as it would also logically follow that the local court
proceedings were null and void as the local court's jurisdiction is way
(8) That the holding of the learned magistrate that the couple lived a
luxurious life was not supported by facts. According to the Judge what
(9) On the issue of ignoring the monies the Respondent was owing the
Appellant, the court was of the view that the monies were apparently
given on the understanding of the relationship the parties had and not
As earlier alluded to, the learned Judge largely upheld the Judgment
relaunching most of the grounds which were before the court below as
follows:
(1) The court below erred in law and fact by failing, neglecting and refusing
laws governing the marriage, divorce and property, whereby the parties
•
-JlO-
divorced when the Respondent wrote the letter of divorce as per the Lozi
custom
(2) The learned Judge erred in law and fact when she awarded the property
of the marriage which happened in 1984. The said property was not
(3) The court below erred in law as there was an Order for stay of execution
granted by a single Judge of the Supreme Court which the High Court
(4) The court below misdirected itself in ignoring the evidence of the
Appellant that the magistrate should have recused herself as she was
(5) The court below misdirected itself in ignoring the evidence of the
Appellant that the magistrate misdirected herself in law and in fact when
she completely ignored the evidence that the Respondent owed the
Respondent's submissions)
(6) The court below misdirected itself in ignoring the evidence of the
Appellant that the court below misdirected itself in law and fact when it
manufactured evidence that:- (i) the parties lived a luxurious life and (ii)
that both the Appellant and the Respondent were bringing in the family
such fmdings.
In arguing the frrst ground of appeal, Mrs. Mushota, Counsel for the
-}12-
It was Counsel's contention that desertion came frrst and the incessant
letters made it imperative that assessors should have been called upon
customary law of the parties as regards the divorce and property rights
marriage, Counsel placed reliance on the Mwiya2 case and Chibwea case
date when the marriage ended in the face of the various suggested
dates.
matrimonial home.
-J 13-
It was Counsel's argument that the Mwiya2 and Chibwea cases are
and a certificate of title issued in the name of the Appellant, which was
the court below did not grant the stay of execution, the Respondent
On the fourth ground of appeal, it was submitted that the court below
In arguing the flfth ground of appeal, Counsel contended that the court
' '
Appellant demonstrated how she was owed the money and therefore,
marriage and the reasons to the claims for the monies the Respondent
submitted that the parties lived a luxurious life and that both were
19991.
the first ground of appeal, submitted that the learned Judge analysed
made by the court below and flies in the teeth of a plethora of decided
Corporation Limited6 where it was held by the Supreme Court that the
fmdings made by the trial court should not lightly be interfered with
the past.
recognised that the marriage was pursuant to Lozi custom and she
went further to distinguish the Mwiya:z case from this case. That in
doing so, the learned Judge was guided by what the Supreme Court
said in the Chibwes case and cannot therefore be faulted for upholding
learned Judge was on terrafinna when she awarded the Kalundu house
property was acquired in 1999, long after the marriage had ended in
1987, both the Subordinate Court and the High Court had earlier held
Avondale Housing Project Limited7 and submitted that the Appellant had
not demonstrated that the fmding that the parties divorced on 1st
November, 2001 and not 1984, is perverse or was made in the absence
It was further argued that the appeal before the High Court was from
That in dealing with the appeal the learned Judge considered the facts
-J 17-
merely keeping in line with the guidance of the Supreme Court in the
stated on record."
According to Counsel there was no legal basis for the learned Judge to
stated on record.
learned Judge did not discharge the stay of execution of a single Judge
of the Supreme Court, but the stay of execution in the High Court.
be the basis for disturbing fmdings of the lower court. That the stay
Upon 'the High Court determining the appeal, the stay of execution
was devoid of any merit. That the issue was being raised for the flrst
time on appeal in the High Court as it was not raised before the
It was submitted that, even then, the learned Judge still dealt with the
all the evidence on record and gave reasons for upholding the
It was further submitted that these were fmdings of fact which cannot
frrst ground of appeal that the court failed to recognise the perimeters,
if the court had recognised that, the result would have been efficacious
the argument in the second ground that the court erred in awarding
place until the fmal appeal. That there should have been an
We have carefully considered the Judgment of the court below and the
end.
law, it would have applied the same in determining when the marriage
was dissolved.
The submissions by Counsel for the Appellant on this point are quite
hazy and also seem to contradict the Appellant's evidence, her own
I
in the frrst ground of appeal that the parties divorced in 1987 when
the Respondent wrote the frrst letter of divorce as per the Lozi custom.
The evidence of the Appellant was explicit, that she took the several
letters which had been written by the Respondent and used them as
"
-J 21-
the basis for the dissolution of the marriage, which was granted on 1st
We are in agreement with Counsel for the Respondent, that the court
custom, hence its reference to the Mwiya:a case and distinguishing the
Further the court below made a fmding of fact based on the evidence
on record, which was before it that the marriage was dissolved by the
to interfere as the same was made on the basis of the relevant evidence
with the learned Judge, that, that cannot be the basis for setting aside
the Judgment of the court below in the absence of proof that the
trial with assessors is discretional and not mandatory and neither did
We also note that both parties were represented by Counsel before the
She however did not ask the court to sit with assessors.
Kalundu house.
We will from the onset as earlier found and established proceed on the
always been rented out. The learned Judge in the court below at page
state as follows:
mortgage transactions.
of the marriage. The property was changed into her name and she is
matrimonial property.
We note from the record at page 27, that the Appellant gave
the record addressed to the same law fum, gave instructions to the
frrm to prepare a Deed of Gift in favour of the Appellant for her benefit
This is what the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the said letter stated:
has also given me K12 Million and I have further had the
AAP3328.
It is evident from the wording of the letter that the intention of the
ownership was only done in 2002 I 2003, it is our view that the
Kalundu house.
The Respondent has to rebut the presumption that the house belongs
trust.
In the English case of Eves v Eves• the Court of Appeal held that the
defendant held the house on trust for himself and the plaintiff because
From the circumstances of this case we fmd no basis for making any
finding of the court below that the Respondent had an interest in the
The third ground of appeal attacks the learned Judge's Order in the
single Judge of the Supreme Court. The said Order appears at page
A perusal of the said Order reveals that the Judge of the Supreme
Court merely reaffumed the Order of the learned High Court Judge
0ur understanding is that the Order was granted pending hearing and
of the Judgment.
We cannot therefore, fault the learned Judge for discharging the same
The fourth ground of appeal alleges that the trial magistrate should
business partner.
We are in agreement with the learned Judge that this matter was never
Our perusal of the record reveals that this issue was raised by the
Appellant's Counsel for the flrst time in the submissions before the
arguments.
Therefore, this issue, not having been raised before, could not be
As regards the flfth ground of appeal, equally this issue was not raised
before the learned magistrate as the record will show. It was equally
raised for the flrst time in the Appellant's submissions in the High
Court.
In any case, the dispute for determination before the magistrate court,
Equally as in ground four, this issue was not competently before the
court, although both parties fell prey and submitted on the same.
Counsel for the Appellant intends to achieve as the learned Judge did
agree with the Appellant that indeed the fact of luxurious living was .~
j
~
... •..
~
-Po-
not supported by facts. She went on to state that, what was apparent
evidence which was before the court below. We fmd no basis for
The sum total of this appeal is that ground one, three, four, five and
six are dismissed for lack of merit, whilst the second ground of appeal
on that ground and Order that the Kalundu property be given to the
Each party is to bear its own costs in this Court and in the court below.
F. M. CHISANGA
JUDGE PRESIDENT
COURT OF APPEAL
~AJ~r
J.Z.~~G
COUltT OF APPEAL JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE