Former ambassador in divorce storm

BY CHARLES LAITON

Former Zimbabwe’s Ambassador to Russia, Boniface Guwa Chidyausiku’s ex-wife, Evelyn Chidyausiku (nee Gurupira) has approached the High Court seeking an order to reverse the cancellation of the couples’ marriage, accusing her former husband of having fraudulently prosecuted the divorce in May this year.

Evelyn recently filed an urgent chamber application for stay of execution of the divorce after Chidyausiku allegedly took over a flat in Harare and instructed the tenants there not to pay rentals of the property to his ex-wife, but to him instead.

“This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution of an order of this court in HC495/11 granting a decree of divorce and ancillary relief pending
the finalisation of a court application for rescission of judgment filed under HC7329/19,” she said in her founding affidavit.

Evelyn further said she stands to suffer great financial prejudice of over $5 000 per month if Chidyausiku is allowed to wrongfully and unjustly continue executing the divorce order granted under HC495/11.

“The consent paper upon which the order HC495/11 is based is a consequence of fraud and it must not be allowed to stand as its execution is a grave injustice
to me. During the negotiations for the consent paper I was made to believe that I should cede 50% of the Marlborough property which is registered in the first
respondent (Boniface Chidyausiku) and my self’s names, while I take the properties registered under BGC Investments (Pvt) Ltd because the company’s shares are
held by my children and I,” Evelyn said.

Evelyn also said all the immovable properties that were awarded to her are registered in the name of BGC Investments (Pvt) Ltd, a company with separate legal
personality.

“Since the granting of the order, the first respondent has not relinquished his shares in BGC Investments (Pvt) Ltd and further there has been any transfer of
title in respect of the Marlborough Property and the Rufaro Gardens property, the costs of which are supposed to be borne by the first respondent. In effect
none of the terms of consent ordered has been complied with by the first respondent,” she said.

The matter is pending.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *