Chiyangwa fights to pay US$40 maintenance fees for two children

0
720
Philip Chiyangwa

BY DESMOND CHINGARANDE
FLAMBOYANT businessman and Zanu PF’s Zvimba South MP Phillip Chiyangwa has asked the courts to consider a downward variation on maintenance fee for two children with former wife Pamela Rusere from $40 000 per month to $8 000.

The pair have been fighting in the courts over the maintenance. Rusere won a court order for the MP to pay $40 000 for his two children sometime in 2020 before the maverick businessman obtained a default judgment for the maintenance variation which reduced the fee to a paltry $8 000 (approximately US$40) at the parallel market.

He was also ordered to pay R49 000 directly to a school in South Africa for the children’s fees.

However, in April 2021, the businessman obtained a default judgment that varied the maintenance from $40 000 to $8 000 while Rusere’s application for rescission was dismissed.

Rusere then filed an appeal at the High Court where a judgment to dismiss the downward variation was handed down in her favour by Justices Pisirayi Kwenda and Emilia Muchawa.

Chiyangwa was also in default when the judgment was handed down.

The businessman then filed an application for rescission of the judgment on December 10 last year under HC 7097/21.

On the same day, Chiyangwa filed an urgent chamber application for stay of execution pending the outcome of the application for rescission.

He claimed that the appeal in favour of Rusere was granted in error and must be rescinded.

“The patent error alleged by Chiyangwa is that the court, after allowing the appeal against dismissal of the application for rescission of a default judgment and setting aside the default judgment should not have gone on to dismiss the application for downwards variation of maintenance. That should have been dealt with on the merits in the Magistrates’ Court,” Chiyangwa argued.

In his ruling, Justice Rodgers Manyangadze said it was appropriate to stay the judgment in favour of Rusere.

“In the circumstances, it is my considered view that it is appropriate and in accordance with real and substantial justice that execution of the judgment be stayed until the question of whether or not it was granted in error is resolved.

“In her notice of opposition, Rusere does not clearly and convincingly address the issue of the alleged patent error, so as to assist the court on the important question of whether or not the pending application for rescission carries with it prospects of success,” reads the judgement.

“In the result, it is ordered that; the application be and is hereby granted.  Execution of the order issued in Case No. CIV ‘A’ 77/2021 be and is hereby stayed pending determination of the application for rescission filed under Case No. 9097/21,” reads the judgment.