A Harare woman who claimed a 100 pula note flung at a rival wife in Botswana ended a customary marriage has lost her High Court bid to be declared the sole surviving spouse of the late Paul Sambadoti, who died on August 3, 2019.
Justice Ammy Tsanga ruled on October 27, 2026 that the alleged divorce between Sambadoti and his first wife, Candy Muganho, was never properly concluded under customary law, and that Pupurai Makoni had failed to prove the other marriages had been dissolved. The claim was dismissed with costs.
What the High Court decided
According to NewZimbabwe.com, which first reported the judgment, Makoni told the court that Sambadoti had ended his marriage to Muganho around 2008 by giving her 100 pula as gupuro, a customary divorce token, during a heated confrontation in Botswana. She said Muganho had travelled from Zimbabwe with a friend, ostensibly to seek maintenance and collect her belongings, when Sambadoti declared she was no longer his wife and handed over the money before she returned home.
Justice Tsanga was unmoved. She found that a shouting match on foreign soil, with no middleman and no notification to the wife's family, is not how our ancestors ended a marriage, and it is not how our courts will recognise one ending today.
“A shouting match in Botswana where Paul Sambadoti is alleged by Pupurai to have flung a 100 pula note at his wife in front of her friend, hardly constitutes the proper notification to the wife's family that a marriage has ended,” Justice Tsanga said.
Even Makoni's own witness, the deceased's nephew Luckson Machiwa, conceded under questioning that a customary divorce ordinarily involved a middleman and the wife's relatives. He testified that his uncle had told him he separated from Muganho around 2007, but that Sambadoti himself had said the matter should be taken up with Muganho's parents. The judge held that this evidence fell well short of proving formal dissolution.
“The evidence of separation is therefore considerably stronger than the evidence of completed dissolution,” she ruled.
Three wives, six houses and a fight over an estate
The stakes in this case were not sentimental. Sambadoti left behind six immovable properties in Zimbabwe, and Makoni wanted them all. The Zambian Observer reported that the Botswana-based woman stood to lose her claim to the entire portfolio after the court confirmed the deceased had three surviving wives.
Muganho denied ever being divorced. She insisted she remained Sambadoti's wife despite their separation and continued living in their matrimonial home in Zimbabwe. She acknowledged she had not visited her husband during his illness in Botswana, where Makoni lived with and cared for him until his death, but maintained the couple had continued seeing each other and that he had forgiven her after she had a child with another man.
Her evidence was backed by Sambadoti's sister, Tecla Machiwa, who told the court the couple had reconciled after marital problems that began following Makoni's arrival.
Justice Tsanga also threw out Makoni's argument that Muganho's exclusion from the funeral ritual of washing the deceased's face and applying oil proved she was no longer a wife. Makoni had claimed Muganho was barred from the ritual because she was considered unclean after committing adultery. The court found that conduct at a funeral cannot, on its own, dissolve a customary marriage.
Lobola settles the third wife's status
Makoni had also attacked the status of the third woman, Pauline Mushanigwa, claiming she had been introduced to her only as Sambadoti's business partner, not his wife. That claim collapsed under the weight of lobola.
Mushanigwa testified that lobola had been paid to her family, with Sambadoti's relatives attending the customary proceedings despite his own absence. Her mother, Grace Mushanigwa, corroborated the evidence, confirming she had received lobola groceries through Sambadoti as her son-in-law.
“The evidence therefore goes beyond a mere assertion by Pauline that she was a wife,” Justice Tsanga said, adding that the lobola, the family participation and the recognition of the relationship all supported Mushanigwa's position.
The court further noted that Muganho and Mushanigwa had registered Sambadoti's estate and were recognised as wives by the Master of the High Court. All three women had also been allocated rental income from different properties left by the deceased, following a family meeting held at a memorial service in December 2019.
Care and devotion cannot rewrite customary law
Makoni had argued that she, more than anyone, deserved recognition. She told the court she had helped her husband acquire properties by assisting with invoicing at his workplace and travelling to Zimbabwe to purchase properties while he provided the money. She said she alone nursed him during his illness while the other women never visited.
Justice Tsanga acknowledged her devotion, then drew the line firmly.
“Pupurai's evidence concerning her life with the deceased, her contribution to the acquisition of property, her role in his business affairs and her care of him during his illness may demonstrate the closeness and substance of her relationship with him, but those matters cannot substitute for proof that the other customary marriages had been dissolved,” the judge ruled.
She concluded that Makoni had failed to discharge the evidential burden required for a declaration that she was the deceased's sole surviving wife. The Herald also reported the ruling, confirming the dismissal of the claim with costs.
Why this judgment matters for Zimbabwean families
This ruling is a defence of the institutions that hold our society together. Customary marriage is not a casual arrangement to be undone by an argument and a banknote in a foreign country. It demands process, the involvement of families, and respect for the elders who carry the authority of our traditions. Justice Tsanga has affirmed that our courts will protect those standards, no matter how much property sits on the other side of the dispute.
For families spread across borders, as so many Zimbabwean families are, the message is clear: separation is not divorce, and a token given in anger is not gupuro. Those who wish to end a customary marriage must follow customary law, or the marriage stands.
FAQ
What is gupuro in Zimbabwean customary law?
Gupuro is a customary divorce token given to formally end a marriage. The court found that a 100 pula note thrown during a shouting match in Botswana did not meet the requirements of proper notification to the wife's family.
Who inherited Paul Sambadoti's estate?
The High Court ruled that all three women, Pupurai Makoni, Candy Muganho and Pauline Mushanigwa, were surviving spouses of Paul Sambadoti, who left six immovable properties in Zimbabwe.
Can funeral conduct prove a customary marriage has ended?
No. Justice Ammy Tsanga ruled that a wife's exclusion from funeral rituals such as washing the deceased's face cannot, on its own, establish the legal dissolution of a customary marriage.