High Court orders Chombo to share Allan Grange Farm with ex-wife

FORMER Cabinet minister Ignatius Chombo has lost a protracted battle with his former wife, Marian, over Allan Grange Farm after the High Court found that she played a substantial role in acquiring and running the sprawling 3,098-hectare property during their marriage.

Justice Philipa Phillips ruled that while the farm itself belongs to the State, the rights and benefits attached to its 99-year lease constitute a matrimonial asset and must be shared.

Chombo was awarded 55% of the value of the leasehold rights, while Marian was awarded 45%, with the court ordering that her portion must include the farmhouse where she has lived since the couple’s divorce.

Marian claimed that she and Chombo had jointly applied for the farm, but the eventual 99-year lease was issued in his name alone.

She told the court she was directly involved in the application process, saying, “I sat at the table and filled in the forms.”

Marian said the couple had initially been allocated the farm through an offer letter in 2003 before jointly applying for the 99-year lease in 2007.

She said Ministry officials even interviewed her at the farm, and she was therefore shocked when the final lease came out bearing only Chombo’s name.

The judge attached considerable weight to her evidence, finding that it was “not materially disputed” by Chombo.

Marian also told the court that while Chombo was busy with his Cabinet duties in Harare, she was the one running the farming operation on the ground.

She said she managed wheat, soya and commercial maize production, as well as chicken, beef cattle and dairy projects.

Chombo, she said, would plan and advise while she executed the plans.

Justice Phillips found that the former couple had effectively operated the farm as a partnership.

“The parties thus operated as a farming partnership within the marriage, each contributing in different but complementary ways to the establishment and maintenance of the farming activities,” the judge said.

The court also heard that the couple’s two sons were educated from money generated through Marian’s farming activities.

That evidence was not disputed by Chombo.

Marian maintained that the farm was productive and had been her only source of income until vandalism and deterioration affected operations.

Her version directly contradicted Chombo’s argument that the farm was essentially a liability at the time of the divorce.

Chombo told the court that he had personally applied for the farm and became its 99-year leaseholder around 2007.

He argued that the lease had no positive economic value when the marriage ended because the farming operation was burdened by massive debts.

He said banks had financed every aspect of the operation, including machinery, fuel, seed and labour.

He told the court he had borrowed money to acquire heavy-duty tractors, combine harvesters and centre pivots and later consolidated debts owed to three banks.

According to Chombo, he assumed responsibility for the loans, machinery, lorries and other movable assets following the divorce.

He further claimed that the farm had never generated profits and that the family’s survival had largely depended on benefits he received as a government minister.

But the judge found a major weakness in his case.

“Having alleged that the leasehold rights were of negative value due to indebtedness, it was incumbent upon him to place before the court cogent and reliable evidence demonstrating the extent of those liabilities and their effect upon the value of the leasehold interest,” Justice Phillips said.

The court said Chombo should have produced financial statements, loan agreements, bank records, valuations or other documentary evidence showing the net value of the lease.

Instead, the judge noted that Chombo himself had testified that the farm had future earning potential and that he expected it to become profitable after further investment.

The court therefore rejected the argument that the existence of debts automatically wiped out the value of the lease.

The legal battle stems from the couple’s divorce, which Chombo initiated in 2009.

Their divorce was granted on August 31, 2012, after the parties reached a consent agreement resolving most property disputes, but Allan Grange Farm remained unresolved.

The couple had married traditionally in 1985 before solemnising their civil marriage in 1993.

The farm dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court, which held that although the land belongs to the State, the rights and benefits flowing from the registered 99-year lease constitute an asset of the spouses.

The matter was sent back to the High Court to determine the value of those rights and distribute them equitably.

Justice Phillips said the lease was acquired during the marriage and was therefore a matrimonial asset under Section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act.

The law requires the court to consider the spouses’ financial resources, obligations, contributions, the duration of the marriage and other circumstances when deciding how matrimonial assets should be distributed.

It does not demand an automatic 50-50 split.

However, the judge said there was no basis to depart from the 50-50 starting point in Marian’s favour because of her substantial contribution to the farm.

The judge also pointed to the lease itself, which defined the lessee as the person signing it “and his or her spouse or spouses jointly.”

“On this basis, the defendant is entitled to an equal joint share in the value of the rights and benefits flowing from the lease,” Justice Phillips ruled.

But Chombo’s post-divorce contribution ultimately tipped the scales.

The judge accepted that he had carried the farming liabilities and financial risks alone after the couple separated.

Marian’s 50% entitlement was therefore reduced by five percent.

“Benefits come with liabilities, we take the good with the bad,” the judge said.

The court consequently ordered that Chombo receive 55% and Marian 45% of the value of the rights and benefits flowing from Allan Grange Farm.

Marian was also allowed to remain in occupation of the farmhouse.

The court ordered that when her 45% portion is identified, the farmhouse and the land surrounding it must be included first.

Both parties were ordered to pay their own legal costs.

The judgment does not give Marian 45% ownership of the land itself, since the land belongs to the State. Her entitlement is to 45% of the value of the leasehold rights and benefits.

The post High Court orders Chombo to share Allan Grange Farm with ex-wife appeared first on NewZimbabwe.com.