HARARE – A quiet revolution is unfolding within Zimbabwe’s Civil Courts, a phenomenon some are now calling the “Maintenance Wars.” In recent months, magistrates have been issuing child maintenance payouts that have left many high-earning fathers, particularly prominent businessmen and celebrities, reeling in disbelief. This dramatic shift in judicial approach is widely attributed to the escalating cost of living, forcing courts to re-evaluate what constitutes adequate support in 2026. This investigation delves into the mechanics behind these unprecedented rulings, examining the alleged “secret maintenance formulas” at play and the contentious accusations that some women are exploiting the system to bankroll extravagant lifestyles.
At the heart of this unfolding drama are several high-profile cases that have captured public attention and ignited fierce debate. One such case involves the well-known businessman, Wicknell Chivayo, whose divorce proceedings have brought the issue of substantial payouts into sharp focus. His former partner is reportedly demanding a staggering US$25 million lump sum payment, alongside US$40,000 per month in spousal maintenance and a fleet of luxury vehicles, including three Rolls-Royces. While Chivayo has reportedly agreed to a US$5 million divorce payout, the initial demands highlight the escalating figures now being sought in Zimbabwean courts. His lawyers have vehemently contested these claims, arguing that the customary union was never formally registered, thus limiting legal validity for spousal maintenance, and that his former partner voluntarily terminated the union, extinguishing any residual entitlements. They assert that the assets in question are solely the product of Chivayo’s industry, describing the claims as “frivolous and vexatious.” On the matter of spousal maintenance, Chivayo’s legal team has been unequivocal, stating he has “no obligation to maintain a woman who voluntarily terminated the union. She is an adult… Defendant is not her meal-ticket for life.”
Another case that has sent ripples through the business community is that of Murombo Josiah Mimana, a prominent businessman ordered by the High Court to pay his estranged wife, Marvel Mtisi, US$11,726 per month in maintenance. This ruling, delivered on October 9, 2025, also stipulated that Mimana contribute 80% of Mtisi’s legal costs pending the finalisation of their divorce. Mtisi, who was married to Mimana under an unregistered customary union since 2001 and shares eight children with him, approached the court after Mimana allegedly ceased US$20,000 monthly payments in February 2025. She argued that she was unemployed and had been excluded from their lucrative businesses, despite claiming a 50% stake. Her legal team highlighted the financial health of their companies, citing “lucrative Jet A1 fuel supply contracts” and profitable mining operations, asserting Mimana’s capacity to meet the US$21,936 in monthly expenses she initially claimed. Mimana, however, contended that the US$20,000 payments were made by the company for family upkeep, not personally, and accused Mtisi of mismanaging the funds. Justice Fatima Maxwell, in her ruling, found that Mimana possessed the financial capacity to support his wife, noting her dependence on the monthly contributions and his unilateral control over the company’s finances. The court, while trimming some non-recurring and tutoring costs, ultimately upheld a substantial monthly payment, dismissing Mimana’s technical objections as a “desperate attempt… to avoid going into the merits.”
These cases underscore a growing trend where courts are increasingly scrutinising the financial capacity of high-earning individuals and prioritising the maintenance of a child’s accustomed lifestyle. The concept of “reasonable needs” has become a central battleground. In 2026, this term is being interpreted more broadly than ever before, encompassing not just basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter, but also educational opportunities, medical aid, and recreational activities that align with the parents’ financial standing. Legal experts suggest that magistrates are moving away from rigid formulas, instead adopting a more holistic approach that considers the child’s pre-separation lifestyle and the non-custodial parent’s ability to maintain that standard. This nuanced interpretation aims to prevent a drastic decline in the child’s quality of life following parental separation.
However, this shift has not been without controversy. Whispers abound that some women are leveraging these new judicial interpretations to secure payouts that far exceed the actual needs of their children, effectively funding lavish personal lifestyles. Critics argue that the system, while intended to protect vulnerable children, is being manipulated by opportunistic individuals. These accusations, often circulated in social circles and tabloid media, paint a picture of mothers demanding exorbitant sums for designer clothes, international holidays, and luxury cars, all under the guise of child maintenance. While concrete evidence for such widespread abuse remains elusive, the perception alone fuels resentment among some fathers and contributes to the highly charged atmosphere surrounding maintenance disputes.
Adding another layer to this complex narrative is the alleged “coordinated push” by women’s rights groups. There is a growing conspiracy theory that these organisations are actively working to establish new legal precedents that disproportionately favour mothers, irrespective of the father’s actual income or the mother’s own financial capabilities. While women’s rights advocates maintain their focus is on ensuring equitable support for children and preventing financial hardship for custodial parents, their increased lobbying and legal interventions are viewed by some as an orchestrated effort to reshape maintenance law. Organisations like Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA) have been vocal on issues affecting women’s rights, including those related to constitutional amendments and access to justice, which indirectly influence the legal landscape for maintenance cases.
On the flip side, investigative journalists are uncovering how some “deadbeat dads” are employing sophisticated tactics to evade their financial responsibilities. The use of technology and offshore accounts to conceal wealth from the courts is a growing concern. Some fathers are reportedly channelling funds through complex corporate structures, digital currencies, or foreign bank accounts, making it incredibly difficult for legal teams to trace their true financial standing. This deliberate obfuscation of assets presents a significant challenge for courts attempting to assess a parent’s actual capacity to pay maintenance. The ongoing efforts by authorities to combat illicit financial flows and recover assets hidden offshore underscore the scale of this problem, which extends beyond maintenance disputes to broader economic integrity issues.
The legal guidelines governing maintenance in Zimbabwe are rooted in the Maintenance Act [Chapter 5:09] and the Magistrates Court Act [Chapter 7:10]. These acts stipulate that maintenance must cover the “reasonable needs” of the child, assessed against the financial capacity of both parents. In simple English, this means courts consider the child’s expenses (food, schooling, medical care, etc.) and then determine how much each parent can realistically contribute based on their income, assets, and other financial obligations. The recent trend indicates a stricter interpretation of a parent’s “capacity to pay,” especially for those with substantial wealth. Courts are less inclined to accept claims of financial hardship from individuals known for opulent lifestyles, instead demanding transparency and accountability regarding their true earnings and assets. The emphasis is on ensuring that children do not suffer a diminished standard of living simply because their parents have separated.
This unfolding saga of greed, heartbreak, and legal drama touches the lives of thousands of Zimbabweans. It reflects not only the personal struggles of families navigating separation but also broader societal tensions surrounding wealth distribution, gender roles, and judicial fairness. As the courts continue to grapple with these complex issues, the “Maintenance Wars” are set to redefine financial responsibilities within Zimbabwean families, making it a story that continues to captivate and provoke discussion across the nation.