HARARE – Former cabinet minister Ignatius Chombo has lost a long-running battle over the value of the 99-year lease to Allan Grange Farm, with the High Court ruling that his ex-wife, Marian Chombo, is entitled to 45 percent of the rights and benefits flowing from the property.
Justice Philipa Phillips ruled that although the 3,098-hectare farm itself belongs to the state and cannot be divided as matrimonial property, the registered lease acquired during the couple’s marriage was an asset capable of distribution under Zimbabwe’s matrimonial law.
The former finance minister had argued that the lease had little or no positive value when the couple divorced in 2012 because the farming operation was heavily burdened by debt.
But the court found that Marian, herself a politician who served as Mashonaland Central Provincial Affairs and Devolution Minister, had made substantial contributions to the farm during their marriage and was therefore entitled to a share of its value.
The court ultimately awarded Chombo 55 percent and Marian 45 percent of the value of the rights and benefits attached to the lease.
The ruling brings to an end a dispute that dates back to the couple’s divorce proceedings, which began in 2009.
The couple entered into a customary marriage in 1985 before solemnising their civil marriage in May 1993. Their divorce was granted on August 31, 2012, after they reached agreement on most of their property, leaving the Allan Grange Farm lease as the major unresolved issue.
The farm, situated on the boundary of Zvimba and Mhangura, is about 3,099 hectares and is held under a 99-year lease registered through a Notarial Deed of Lease in May 2007.
The Supreme Court had previously sent the dispute back to the High Court, directing it to determine the value of the couple’s rights in the farm and distribute that value equitably.
Chombo told the High Court that he had obtained the farm from the government and subsequently invested heavily in developing it, including purchasing tractors, combine harvesters and centre pivots.
He said banks had financed seeds, fuel, machinery and labour and that by the time of the divorce he owed substantial sums to three banks.
Chombo said he subsequently assumed responsibility for the debts and had repaid Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe loans in 2018.
His case was that the farming operation had been a financial liability rather than an asset.
He told the court that the family had survived largely on the benefits he received as a government minister and that the farm had not generated profits.
Chombo further said it would require about US$2.7 million to rehabilitate the farm and that, through a joint venture, he was hoping the operation would eventually become profitable.
But Marian gave a different account of their farming history.
She told the court that both parties had applied for the farm and that she was involved in completing the application before being shocked when the 99-year lease was issued in Chombo’s name alone.
She said she had run the farming operations while Chombo was largely based in Harare performing his Cabinet duties.
According to her evidence, she managed wheat, soya and commercial maize production as well as chicken, beef and dairy projects.
She also said the farm had been an important source of income for the family and that she had used money generated from its activities to pay school fees for their two children.
Phillips found Marian’s evidence of her involvement in the farm significant.
“The defendant was involved in the farming operations from the time of the acquisition of the farm, managing crop production, dairy operations, livestock projects and the day-to-day administration of the farm whilst the plaintiff attended to his duties as a cabinet minister,” the judge said.
The court found that the couple had effectively operated the farm as a partnership during their marriage, with each making different but complementary contributions.
“The parties thus operated as a farming partnership within the marriage, each contributing in different but complementary ways to the establishment and maintenance of the farming activities,” Phillips said.
The judge also rejected Chombo’s contention that the debts automatically wiped out the value of his ex-wife’s interest.
Phillips said Chombo had the evidential burden of proving the extent of the liabilities and their effect on the lease’s value.
“The court would ordinarily expect financial statements, loan agreements, bank records, valuations or other documentary evidence from which the net value of the leasehold rights could be objectively assessed,” the judge said.
The court noted that while large-scale farming can involve substantial debt, such operations may simultaneously have underlying assets, benefits and future earning potential.
Importantly, the judge pointed to Chombo’s own evidence that he expected the farm to become profitable in future.
“I, therefore, am of the view that the existence of plaintiff’s liabilities does not automatically extinguish the significant value of the rights and benefits flowing from the registered lease,” Phillips ruled.
The case turned largely on Section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act [Chapter 5:13], which gives the High Court power, when dealing with divorce, to divide, apportion or distribute the assets of spouses.
The law requires the court to consider the circumstances of each case rather than simply dividing property mechanically.
Among the factors the court must consider are each spouse’s income-earning capacity and financial resources, their financial obligations, the family’s standard of living, the welfare of children, the direct and indirect contributions made by each spouse, the length of the marriage and other relevant circumstances.
Importantly, the law expressly recognises contributions that are not simply financial, including looking after the home and caring for the family.
Zimbabwean case law has also established that matrimonial assets are not limited to property registered in both spouses’ names. Assets held in one spouse’s name may still be considered matrimonial assets.
The courts have further held that 50-50 is a starting point, rather than an automatic entitlement. The ultimate division must be reasonable, practical and just, taking into account the contributions and circumstances of the parties.
In this case, Phillips found there was no basis to depart from the 50-50 starting position in respect of the leasehold benefits because Marian had made substantial contributions to the farm.
The judge, however, took into account Chombo’s post-separation burden in meeting the farming liabilities.
“Benefits come with liabilities, we take the good with the bad,” Phillips said.
The court therefore reduced Marian’s 50 percent entitlement by five percentage points, giving Chombo a 55 percent share and Marian 45 percent.
The ruling does not mean Marian was awarded 45 percent ownership of the land itself. The court specifically found that the farm belongs to the State. What is divisible is the value of the rights and benefits arising from the registered 99-year lease.
Marian was also allowed to remain in occupation of the farmhouse, where she has lived since the 2012 divorce settlement.
The court directed that when her 45% portion is demarcated, it must include the farmhouse and the surrounding area.
Both parties were ordered to pay their own legal costs.
Source: Chombo loses half of 3,000-hectare farm lease after ex-wife sues – Zimbabwe News Now
The post Chombo loses half of 3,000-hectare farm lease after ex-wife sues appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.