Potera contested the equal share of their property, asserting that since he was the one with formal employment, he should retain a larger portion. However, Justice Amy Tsanga of the High Court ruled in favor of Chigariro, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding property division.
Justice Tsanga pointed out that if Potera believed he suffered damages due to Chigariro’s alleged adultery, he should have pursued a separate claim for damages, rather than attempting to use those claims to justify unequal distribution of their shared assets. In her ruling, she noted, “The defendant (Potera) mentioned a cellphone that was purportedly given to a boyfriend long after the property was built. While the affair may have contributed to the breakdown of their union, there’s no evidence showing it adversely affected the property they acquired together.”
The judge highlighted the importance of fairness in property distribution, stating, “When property is registered in both names, it is generally distributed equally between the owners unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.” She further stated that allegations of infidelity should only influence property sharing if they clearly impacted the marital assets, which was not the case in this situation.
Justice Tsanga acknowledged Chigariro’s indirect contributions to the acquisition of the disputed property, citing her efforts in cross-border trading to support the family. “She not only ran the household but also contributed to the family’s financial stability,” the judge remarked. Given that the property was jointly owned, she ruled that both parties had equal rights to it.
Moreover, Justice Tsanga recognized the pressing needs of Chigariro, particularly her responsibilities as the caregiver for their minor child and her other dependent child, who is still in school. The judge noted the significant economic shift that Chigariro faced following the end of their union, emphasizing that she and her children were accustomed to a certain standard of living.
The judge also considered the lengthy duration of their relationship—23 years in total—when determining the property settlement. She stated that the length of the union is often a crucial factor in deciding on an equal share of assets.
In her ruling, Justice Tsanga ordered that the property be shared equally, with Potera required to transfer 50% of their assets within six months. Additionally, he was instructed to pay $400 in overdue child maintenance and establish a monthly payment of $50 until their child turns 18.
In her initial plea, Chigariro requested an equal share of their property, emphasizing the family they built together, their children, and the assets accumulated during their time together. Potera, however, maintained that Chigariro’s contributions were minimal due to her lack of formal employment, arguing that he was the main provider.
While Potera initially proposed a 10% share for Chigariro, and later increased it to 15%, he continued to prioritize his claims of infidelity as a central reason for the marriage’s collapse.
Justice Tsanga’s ruling stands as a significant affirmation of equal property rights and highlights the importance of fair treatment in family law, regardless of personal grievances such as allegations of infidelity.
Potera contested the equal share of their property, asserting that since he was the one with formal employment, he should retain a larger portion. However, Justice Amy Tsanga of the High Court ruled in favor of Chigariro, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding property division.
Justice Tsanga pointed out that if Potera believed he suffered damages due to Chigariro’s alleged adultery, he should have pursued a separate claim for damages, rather than attempting to use those claims to justify unequal distribution of their shared assets. In her ruling, she noted, “The defendant (Potera) mentioned a cellphone that was purportedly given to a boyfriend long after the property was built. While the affair may have contributed to the breakdown of their union, there’s no evidence showing it adversely affected the property they acquired together.”
The judge highlighted the importance of fairness in property distribution, stating, “When property is registered in both names, it is generally distributed equally between the owners unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.” She further stated that allegations of infidelity should only influence property sharing if they clearly impacted the marital assets, which was not the case in this situation.
Justice Tsanga acknowledged Chigariro’s indirect contributions to the acquisition of the disputed property, citing her efforts in cross-border trading to support the family. “She not only ran the household but also contributed to the family’s financial stability,” the judge remarked. Given that the property was jointly owned, she ruled that both parties had equal rights to it.
Moreover, Justice Tsanga recognized the pressing needs of Chigariro, particularly her responsibilities as the caregiver for their minor child and her other dependent child, who is still in school. The judge noted the significant economic shift that Chigariro faced following the end of their union, emphasizing that she and her children were accustomed to a certain standard of living.
The judge also considered the lengthy duration of their relationship—23 years in total—when determining the property settlement. She stated that the length of the union is often a crucial factor in deciding on an equal share of assets.
In her ruling, Justice Tsanga ordered that the property be shared equally, with Potera required to transfer 50% of their assets within six months. Additionally, he was instructed to pay $400 in overdue child maintenance and establish a monthly payment of $50 until their child turns 18.
In her initial plea, Chigariro requested an equal share of their property, emphasizing the family they built together, their children, and the assets accumulated during their time together. Potera, however, maintained that Chigariro’s contributions were minimal due to her lack of formal employment, arguing that he was the main provider.
While Potera initially proposed a 10% share for Chigariro, and later increased it to 15%, he continued to prioritize his claims of infidelity as a central reason for the marriage’s collapse.
Justice Tsanga’s ruling stands as a significant affirmation of equal property rights and highlights the importance of fair treatment in family law, regardless of personal grievances such as allegations of infidelity.
Potera contested the equal share of their property, asserting that since he was the one with formal employment, he should retain a larger portion. However, Justice Amy Tsanga of the High Court ruled in favor of Chigariro, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding property division.
Justice Tsanga pointed out that if Potera believed he suffered damages due to Chigariro’s alleged adultery, he should have pursued a separate claim for damages, rather than attempting to use those claims to justify unequal distribution of their shared assets. In her ruling, she noted, “The defendant (Potera) mentioned a cellphone that was purportedly given to a boyfriend long after the property was built. While the affair may have contributed to the breakdown of their union, there’s no evidence showing it adversely affected the property they acquired together.”
The judge highlighted the importance of fairness in property distribution, stating, “When property is registered in both names, it is generally distributed equally between the owners unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.” She further stated that allegations of infidelity should only influence property sharing if they clearly impacted the marital assets, which was not the case in this situation.
Justice Tsanga acknowledged Chigariro’s indirect contributions to the acquisition of the disputed property, citing her efforts in cross-border trading to support the family. “She not only ran the household but also contributed to the family’s financial stability,” the judge remarked. Given that the property was jointly owned, she ruled that both parties had equal rights to it.
Moreover, Justice Tsanga recognized the pressing needs of Chigariro, particularly her responsibilities as the caregiver for their minor child and her other dependent child, who is still in school. The judge noted the significant economic shift that Chigariro faced following the end of their union, emphasizing that she and her children were accustomed to a certain standard of living.
The judge also considered the lengthy duration of their relationship—23 years in total—when determining the property settlement. She stated that the length of the union is often a crucial factor in deciding on an equal share of assets.
In her ruling, Justice Tsanga ordered that the property be shared equally, with Potera required to transfer 50% of their assets within six months. Additionally, he was instructed to pay $400 in overdue child maintenance and establish a monthly payment of $50 until their child turns 18.
In her initial plea, Chigariro requested an equal share of their property, emphasizing the family they built together, their children, and the assets accumulated during their time together. Potera, however, maintained that Chigariro’s contributions were minimal due to her lack of formal employment, arguing that he was the main provider.
While Potera initially proposed a 10% share for Chigariro, and later increased it to 15%, he continued to prioritize his claims of infidelity as a central reason for the marriage’s collapse.
Justice Tsanga’s ruling stands as a significant affirmation of equal property rights and highlights the importance of fair treatment in family law, regardless of personal grievances such as allegations of infidelity.
Potera contested the equal share of their property, asserting that since he was the one with formal employment, he should retain a larger portion. However, Justice Amy Tsanga of the High Court ruled in favor of Chigariro, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding property division.
Justice Tsanga pointed out that if Potera believed he suffered damages due to Chigariro’s alleged adultery, he should have pursued a separate claim for damages, rather than attempting to use those claims to justify unequal distribution of their shared assets. In her ruling, she noted, “The defendant (Potera) mentioned a cellphone that was purportedly given to a boyfriend long after the property was built. While the affair may have contributed to the breakdown of their union, there’s no evidence showing it adversely affected the property they acquired together.”
The judge highlighted the importance of fairness in property distribution, stating, “When property is registered in both names, it is generally distributed equally between the owners unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.” She further stated that allegations of infidelity should only influence property sharing if they clearly impacted the marital assets, which was not the case in this situation.
Justice Tsanga acknowledged Chigariro’s indirect contributions to the acquisition of the disputed property, citing her efforts in cross-border trading to support the family. “She not only ran the household but also contributed to the family’s financial stability,” the judge remarked. Given that the property was jointly owned, she ruled that both parties had equal rights to it.
Moreover, Justice Tsanga recognized the pressing needs of Chigariro, particularly her responsibilities as the caregiver for their minor child and her other dependent child, who is still in school. The judge noted the significant economic shift that Chigariro faced following the end of their union, emphasizing that she and her children were accustomed to a certain standard of living.
The judge also considered the lengthy duration of their relationship—23 years in total—when determining the property settlement. She stated that the length of the union is often a crucial factor in deciding on an equal share of assets.
In her ruling, Justice Tsanga ordered that the property be shared equally, with Potera required to transfer 50% of their assets within six months. Additionally, he was instructed to pay $400 in overdue child maintenance and establish a monthly payment of $50 until their child turns 18.
In her initial plea, Chigariro requested an equal share of their property, emphasizing the family they built together, their children, and the assets accumulated during their time together. Potera, however, maintained that Chigariro’s contributions were minimal due to her lack of formal employment, arguing that he was the main provider.
While Potera initially proposed a 10% share for Chigariro, and later increased it to 15%, he continued to prioritize his claims of infidelity as a central reason for the marriage’s collapse.
Justice Tsanga’s ruling stands as a significant affirmation of equal property rights and highlights the importance of fair treatment in family law, regardless of personal grievances such as allegations of infidelity.
Potera contested the equal share of their property, asserting that since he was the one with formal employment, he should retain a larger portion. However, Justice Amy Tsanga of the High Court ruled in favor of Chigariro, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding property division.
Justice Tsanga pointed out that if Potera believed he suffered damages due to Chigariro’s alleged adultery, he should have pursued a separate claim for damages, rather than attempting to use those claims to justify unequal distribution of their shared assets. In her ruling, she noted, “The defendant (Potera) mentioned a cellphone that was purportedly given to a boyfriend long after the property was built. While the affair may have contributed to the breakdown of their union, there’s no evidence showing it adversely affected the property they acquired together.”
The judge highlighted the importance of fairness in property distribution, stating, “When property is registered in both names, it is generally distributed equally between the owners unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.” She further stated that allegations of infidelity should only influence property sharing if they clearly impacted the marital assets, which was not the case in this situation.
Justice Tsanga acknowledged Chigariro’s indirect contributions to the acquisition of the disputed property, citing her efforts in cross-border trading to support the family. “She not only ran the household but also contributed to the family’s financial stability,” the judge remarked. Given that the property was jointly owned, she ruled that both parties had equal rights to it.
Moreover, Justice Tsanga recognized the pressing needs of Chigariro, particularly her responsibilities as the caregiver for their minor child and her other dependent child, who is still in school. The judge noted the significant economic shift that Chigariro faced following the end of their union, emphasizing that she and her children were accustomed to a certain standard of living.
The judge also considered the lengthy duration of their relationship—23 years in total—when determining the property settlement. She stated that the length of the union is often a crucial factor in deciding on an equal share of assets.
In her ruling, Justice Tsanga ordered that the property be shared equally, with Potera required to transfer 50% of their assets within six months. Additionally, he was instructed to pay $400 in overdue child maintenance and establish a monthly payment of $50 until their child turns 18.
In her initial plea, Chigariro requested an equal share of their property, emphasizing the family they built together, their children, and the assets accumulated during their time together. Potera, however, maintained that Chigariro’s contributions were minimal due to her lack of formal employment, arguing that he was the main provider.
While Potera initially proposed a 10% share for Chigariro, and later increased it to 15%, he continued to prioritize his claims of infidelity as a central reason for the marriage’s collapse.
Justice Tsanga’s ruling stands as a significant affirmation of equal property rights and highlights the importance of fair treatment in family law, regardless of personal grievances such as allegations of infidelity.
Potera contested the equal share of their property, asserting that since he was the one with formal employment, he should retain a larger portion. However, Justice Amy Tsanga of the High Court ruled in favor of Chigariro, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding property division.
Justice Tsanga pointed out that if Potera believed he suffered damages due to Chigariro’s alleged adultery, he should have pursued a separate claim for damages, rather than attempting to use those claims to justify unequal distribution of their shared assets. In her ruling, she noted, “The defendant (Potera) mentioned a cellphone that was purportedly given to a boyfriend long after the property was built. While the affair may have contributed to the breakdown of their union, there’s no evidence showing it adversely affected the property they acquired together.”
The judge highlighted the importance of fairness in property distribution, stating, “When property is registered in both names, it is generally distributed equally between the owners unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.” She further stated that allegations of infidelity should only influence property sharing if they clearly impacted the marital assets, which was not the case in this situation.
Justice Tsanga acknowledged Chigariro’s indirect contributions to the acquisition of the disputed property, citing her efforts in cross-border trading to support the family. “She not only ran the household but also contributed to the family’s financial stability,” the judge remarked. Given that the property was jointly owned, she ruled that both parties had equal rights to it.
Moreover, Justice Tsanga recognized the pressing needs of Chigariro, particularly her responsibilities as the caregiver for their minor child and her other dependent child, who is still in school. The judge noted the significant economic shift that Chigariro faced following the end of their union, emphasizing that she and her children were accustomed to a certain standard of living.
The judge also considered the lengthy duration of their relationship—23 years in total—when determining the property settlement. She stated that the length of the union is often a crucial factor in deciding on an equal share of assets.
In her ruling, Justice Tsanga ordered that the property be shared equally, with Potera required to transfer 50% of their assets within six months. Additionally, he was instructed to pay $400 in overdue child maintenance and establish a monthly payment of $50 until their child turns 18.
In her initial plea, Chigariro requested an equal share of their property, emphasizing the family they built together, their children, and the assets accumulated during their time together. Potera, however, maintained that Chigariro’s contributions were minimal due to her lack of formal employment, arguing that he was the main provider.
While Potera initially proposed a 10% share for Chigariro, and later increased it to 15%, he continued to prioritize his claims of infidelity as a central reason for the marriage’s collapse.
Justice Tsanga’s ruling stands as a significant affirmation of equal property rights and highlights the importance of fair treatment in family law, regardless of personal grievances such as allegations of infidelity.
Potera contested the equal share of their property, asserting that since he was the one with formal employment, he should retain a larger portion. However, Justice Amy Tsanga of the High Court ruled in favor of Chigariro, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding property division.
Justice Tsanga pointed out that if Potera believed he suffered damages due to Chigariro’s alleged adultery, he should have pursued a separate claim for damages, rather than attempting to use those claims to justify unequal distribution of their shared assets. In her ruling, she noted, “The defendant (Potera) mentioned a cellphone that was purportedly given to a boyfriend long after the property was built. While the affair may have contributed to the breakdown of their union, there’s no evidence showing it adversely affected the property they acquired together.”
The judge highlighted the importance of fairness in property distribution, stating, “When property is registered in both names, it is generally distributed equally between the owners unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.” She further stated that allegations of infidelity should only influence property sharing if they clearly impacted the marital assets, which was not the case in this situation.
Justice Tsanga acknowledged Chigariro’s indirect contributions to the acquisition of the disputed property, citing her efforts in cross-border trading to support the family. “She not only ran the household but also contributed to the family’s financial stability,” the judge remarked. Given that the property was jointly owned, she ruled that both parties had equal rights to it.
Moreover, Justice Tsanga recognized the pressing needs of Chigariro, particularly her responsibilities as the caregiver for their minor child and her other dependent child, who is still in school. The judge noted the significant economic shift that Chigariro faced following the end of their union, emphasizing that she and her children were accustomed to a certain standard of living.
The judge also considered the lengthy duration of their relationship—23 years in total—when determining the property settlement. She stated that the length of the union is often a crucial factor in deciding on an equal share of assets.
In her ruling, Justice Tsanga ordered that the property be shared equally, with Potera required to transfer 50% of their assets within six months. Additionally, he was instructed to pay $400 in overdue child maintenance and establish a monthly payment of $50 until their child turns 18.
In her initial plea, Chigariro requested an equal share of their property, emphasizing the family they built together, their children, and the assets accumulated during their time together. Potera, however, maintained that Chigariro’s contributions were minimal due to her lack of formal employment, arguing that he was the main provider.
While Potera initially proposed a 10% share for Chigariro, and later increased it to 15%, he continued to prioritize his claims of infidelity as a central reason for the marriage’s collapse.
Justice Tsanga’s ruling stands as a significant affirmation of equal property rights and highlights the importance of fair treatment in family law, regardless of personal grievances such as allegations of infidelity.
Potera contested the equal share of their property, asserting that since he was the one with formal employment, he should retain a larger portion. However, Justice Amy Tsanga of the High Court ruled in favor of Chigariro, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding property division.
Justice Tsanga pointed out that if Potera believed he suffered damages due to Chigariro’s alleged adultery, he should have pursued a separate claim for damages, rather than attempting to use those claims to justify unequal distribution of their shared assets. In her ruling, she noted, “The defendant (Potera) mentioned a cellphone that was purportedly given to a boyfriend long after the property was built. While the affair may have contributed to the breakdown of their union, there’s no evidence showing it adversely affected the property they acquired together.”
The judge highlighted the importance of fairness in property distribution, stating, “When property is registered in both names, it is generally distributed equally between the owners unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.” She further stated that allegations of infidelity should only influence property sharing if they clearly impacted the marital assets, which was not the case in this situation.
Justice Tsanga acknowledged Chigariro’s indirect contributions to the acquisition of the disputed property, citing her efforts in cross-border trading to support the family. “She not only ran the household but also contributed to the family’s financial stability,” the judge remarked. Given that the property was jointly owned, she ruled that both parties had equal rights to it.
Moreover, Justice Tsanga recognized the pressing needs of Chigariro, particularly her responsibilities as the caregiver for their minor child and her other dependent child, who is still in school. The judge noted the significant economic shift that Chigariro faced following the end of their union, emphasizing that she and her children were accustomed to a certain standard of living.
The judge also considered the lengthy duration of their relationship—23 years in total—when determining the property settlement. She stated that the length of the union is often a crucial factor in deciding on an equal share of assets.
In her ruling, Justice Tsanga ordered that the property be shared equally, with Potera required to transfer 50% of their assets within six months. Additionally, he was instructed to pay $400 in overdue child maintenance and establish a monthly payment of $50 until their child turns 18.
In her initial plea, Chigariro requested an equal share of their property, emphasizing the family they built together, their children, and the assets accumulated during their time together. Potera, however, maintained that Chigariro’s contributions were minimal due to her lack of formal employment, arguing that he was the main provider.
While Potera initially proposed a 10% share for Chigariro, and later increased it to 15%, he continued to prioritize his claims of infidelity as a central reason for the marriage’s collapse.
Justice Tsanga’s ruling stands as a significant affirmation of equal property rights and highlights the importance of fair treatment in family law, regardless of personal grievances such as allegations of infidelity.
