The legal battle between Alick Macheso and Tafadzwa Mapako has taken a new twist with the true identity of the popular sungura musician’s estranged wife being questioned in court.
The two were expected to square off in court yesterday in a maintenance hearing in the case where Mapako is demanding a whopping $7 000 for her upkeep and that of their two children. But the hearing failed to kick off at the Harare Civil Court and was postponed to today.
The postponement of the matter was occasioned by Mapako’s lawyer David Ngwerume, who told Harare magistrate Tafadzwa Muvhami that he had not had time to respond to Macheso’s submissions.
Muvhami, however, questioned Tafadzwa’s identity, which he said was not clear according to the papers filed on record.
He said on her national identity card and her children’s birth certificates, Mapako was being identified as “Fortunate” instead of Tafadzwa, the name she was using as the applicant in the matter.
However, Ngwerume indicated to the court that he would make an application to amend the court papers.
Prior to the postponement of the matter, Macheso’s lawyer, Norman Mugiya, applied to the court to order Mapako to bear the costs of the postponement.
He argued that Mapako was a person of means and was in a position to settle Macheso’s costs.
The maintenance claim has seen Macheso’s first wife Nyadzisai blasting Mapako for claiming an “exorbitant” maintenance amount. She said Mapako was “living in dreamland” and urged the court to dismiss her maintenance claim and order a provisional maintenance proposal suggested by her husband of $1 250 per month pending paternity tests.
In her affidavit in support of Macheso’s response to the maintenance claim, Nyadzisai said: “I agree in toto with what the respondent (Macheso) stated in his affidavit as it reflects the truth of the real position on the ground as opposed to the fallacy which the applicant (Mapako) has sought to portray in her founding affidavit.”
Nyadzisai said she used to stay with the applicant during the course of the now terminated union and they lived an ordinary life.
“We could buy groceries for about $100 to $150 per month as a combined family,” she said.
“It is unfortunate that the applicant is creating a fictitious and imaginary standard of life which I think she has read from leisure and tourism books and not what she ever lived. The applicant lived a life which I know personally and there is nothing she can say which I do not know.”