21/08/2026
Zimbabwe High Court Orders Buy-Out as Borrowdale Divorcees’ Mansion Dispute Reaches Court
Umoja.TV Channel
A long-running living arrangement that saw a Zimbabwean divorcing couple occupy separate sections of their upmarket Borrowdale home is set to come to an end after the High Court ordered the former husband to surrender his share of the property to his ex-wife.
The couple, identified in court papers as Tafadzwa Adelaide Mwale and Isaacs Yesake Mwale, had continued living under the same roof in their nine-bedroom Philadelphia, Borrowdale mansion, with Tafadzwa occupying the upper floor while Isaacs lived downstairs.
Tafadzwa approached the High Court seeking authority to buy out her former husband's interest in the property, maintaining that she had carried the greater financial burden in acquiring and developing the house.
The property was purchased in August 2017 for US$68,000 and was registered in both their names. At the time of the proceedings, US$34,438.27 remained outstanding to the developer.
According to Tafadzwa's submissions, she obtained a US$25,000 StanChart Bank loan towards the purchase and subsequently financed much of the construction of the nine-bedroom residence through additional borrowing and proceeds realised from the sale of her CBZ shares.
She argued that her financial contribution substantially outweighed that of her former husband and initially sought recognition of a 95 percent interest in the property.
Isaacs, a former transport officer at ZESA Headquarters who has been unemployed since December 2019, disputed the extent of his former wife's claim.
While acknowledging that she had contributed more in monetary terms, he maintained that he was entitled to at least half of the property.
He told the court that the house was intended to be his retirement home, particularly after he had disposed of properties in Chinhoyi, Gweru, Norton and Mutare to meet the family's school-fee obligations.
Isaacs also pointed to substantial material and other contributions towards construction, saying he supplied 80,000 bricks, stones and 30 tonnes of cement for the foundation. He further produced quotations relating to timber, tiles, solar equipment and gutters.
He claimed that more than US$40,000 had been deposited into the couple's joint account during the marriage, but said he was unable to obtain historical bank statements because the bank had demanded US$500 to retrieve records dating back to 2017.
He also told the court that, as the couple's self-described "treasurer", his wife had retained invoices and other financial records, while he had discarded his own documents.
Isaacs further argued that his contribution to the marriage extended beyond direct cash payments. Among the factors he relied upon was a ZESA electricity benefit which he said his former wife continued to enjoy, as well as his broader contribution to the household during their more than 13 years of marriage.
Court rejects equal split
In her judgment, Justice Phillipa Phillips granted the divorce and considered how the property should be divided in light of the parties' respective contributions and circumstances.
The court noted that although property registered jointly in the names of spouses carries a presumption of equal ownership, that presumption is not absolute.
In terms of section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, the court is required to consider issues of justice and equity, including the parties' respective contributions and their future needs.
Justice Phillips found that simply giving Isaacs an equal share would not necessarily produce a fair outcome.
The judge also considered the practical consequences of awarding him a share that he might struggle to sustain, while recognising that Tafadzwa would suffer greater financial prejudice if she were required to accommodate a larger share for her former husband.
However, the court also rejected Tafadzwa's proposed 95 percent entitlement, finding that a 5 percent share for Isaacs would be unduly low, particularly given the length of the marriage and his contributions to the property and household.
The court ultimately settled on an 80:20 division, awarding Tafadzwa 80 percent of the property and Isaacs the remaining 20 percent.
The husband was initially assessed as having a 30 percent interest, but the court reduced this by 10 percentage points after taking into account the outstanding liability on the property. Tafadzwa will assume responsibility for settling the US$34,438.27 still owed to the developer.
Six months to complete buy-out
The court directed that the property be valued by an estate agent mutually agreed upon by the parties within 10 working days. Should they fail to agree on an estate agent, the Registrar will appoint one.
Following the valuation, Tafadzwa will have six months to purchase Isaacs' 20 percent interest in the property.
Isaacs has been ordered to sign all documents necessary to facilitate the transfer. Should he fail to cooperate, the Sheriff will be empowered to execute the required documentation on his behalf.
The court further directed that each party bear their own legal costs.
The ruling effectively brings to an end the unusual arrangement under which the former spouses continued occupying different floors of the same matrimonial mansion despite their divorce proceedings, with the property now set to be consolidated under Tafadzwa's ownership once the buy-out is completed.