Zimbabwean Businessman Ordered to Pay Over US$11 000 Monthly Maintenance

High Court Orders Zimbabwean Businessman To Pay Over US$11,000 Monthly To Estranged Wife

A Harare High Court judge has directed a prominent businessman to pay his estranged wife monthly maintenance of US$11,726 (approx. R212,000), ruling that he has the financial capacity to support her pending their divorce. The decision came after the court heard he had previously been paying a similar amount and controlled a multi-million-dollar business empire.

The ruling, delivered by Justice Fatima Maxwell on 9 October 2025, significantly reduced the wife’s initial claim but found in her favour on the core principle of financial dependency. The businessman, Murombo Josiah Mimana, was also ordered to cover 80 percent of his wife’s legal fees for the ongoing divorce case.

Wife Left Without Income After Payments Halt

The court heard that Marvel Mtisi, who has eight children with Mimana, was entirely dependent on her husband. According to court papers, Mimana had been paying US$20,000 (approx. R362,000) per month for the family’s upkeep until he abruptly stopped in February 2025. Mtisi said she was unemployed and had been excluded from the couple’s businesses, despite claiming a 50 percent ownership stake.

In her application, Mtisi detailed the family’s standard of living and argued that the companies — which include a lucrative Jet A1 fuel supply operation and a mining concern — could easily afford the payments. Justice Maxwell agreed with her assessment of dependency, stating in her judgement:

“It is common cause that the applicant has been dependent on the US$20,000 per month she was getting. The respondent’s attempt to distance himself from this payment, by claiming it was a company expense, holds no water. The evidence before me shows he is the directing mind of the enterprise.”

The judge noted the effect of the abrupt cut-off, writing:

“The stoppage of the monthly contribution in February 2025 left the applicant in a precarious position. The respondent’s claim that he continued to pay for airfares and school fees does not address the totality of the household needs she is responsible for managing.”

Husband’s Defence Dismissed By Judge

Mimana opposed the application, denying that he personally paid the US$20,000 and insisting the funds came from a company account. He accused Mtisi of misusing the money and claimed that stopping the payments “did not cause any suffering to the family” since he continued paying for school fees and airfares directly.

However, the judge rejected his defence, pointing to his control of the business. Justice Maxwell ruled:

“I find the respondent’s denial to be a mere technicality. He has not disputed that he is unilaterally running and controlling the company. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the US$20,000 was being paid on his behalf and at his direction. He cannot now hide behind the corporate veil to abdicate his personal responsibility.”

She also dismissed his objection that Mtisi’s affidavit was improperly commissioned, calling it:

“A desperate attempt to avoid going into the merits of the matter. It is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.”

Court Trims Claim But Upholds Obligation

Although siding with Mtisi on the principle of support, the court did not grant her full claim of US$21,936 (approx. R397,000). Justice Maxwell reviewed the schedule of expenses and disallowed several items, including private transport, pocket money, car servicing, and tutoring costs, which she said were either unjustified or non-recurring.

Explaining her decision, the judge said:

“After a careful analysis of the schedule of expenses, I have disallowed a total of US$10,210. The claims for private transport and extensive pocket money, in particular, were not sufficiently substantiated as recurring necessities. The allowed figure of US$11,726 is, in my view, commensurate with the standard of living the applicant was accustomed to and is reasonable.”

On legal costs, Justice Maxwell was firm that Mimana had the means to contribute:

“The request for contribution to legal costs cannot be said to be without merit. The applicant has reasonable prospects of success in the main matter. The respondent is in a position to contribute to the applicant’s legal costs, whether personally or through the company over which he exercises sole control. I therefore order an 80 percent contribution.”

The maintenance order is backdated to February 2025 and will remain in effect until the divorce case, registered as HCHF 1566/25, is finalised. The case involves the division of extensive assets, including 44 fuel tankers, tipper trucks, commercial stands, and businesses in fuel supply and mining.