A Harare businessman who asked the High Court to rewrite a binding AUD700,000 divorce settlement has been sent away empty handed, after Justice Fatima Maxwell ruled that talk of hard times is worthless without numbers to prove it.
Shahid Siddiqui wanted to pay his former wife, Marina Pamela Siddiqui, in monthly instalments of AUD15,000, claiming a downturn at his company, Property World (Pvt) Ltd, had made the original schedule impossible to honour. Justice Maxwell dismissed the application on the grounds that he failed to show any real change in his financial circumstances since he signed the agreement in March 2024.
What the High Court decided
Under a High Court order granted on June 7, 2024, Siddiqui was required to pay AUD700,000 to his former wife in full and final settlement of her proprietary claims arising from their divorce. According to NewZimbabwe.com, which reported the judgment, Siddiqui had already paid AUD342,519 but said he could no longer sustain the original payment schedule because of changing business conditions.
The judge was unmoved. She noted that the financial records Siddiqui presented, management accounts for Property World covering only five months to May 31, 2026, gave the court nothing to compare against the period when he entered the settlement.
“There was no comparative analysis to be done because the earlier position was not before me,” Justice Maxwell said.
“He was content to say his financial circumstances have materially and substantially changed. That change was not demonstrated by numbers,” she added.
Why the court rejected the businessman's evidence
The ruling rests on a simple principle that every Zimbabwean who has ever signed a contract should take comfort from: a man's word, once given before a court of law, binds him. The application was brought under Section 9 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which empowers the courts to vary, suspend or rescind certain orders where good cause is established. Good cause, as this judgment makes plain, means evidence, not regret.
The court also took issue with Siddiqui's silence on seven private companies in which he retained shares under the divorce settlement. Although his application concentrated on Property World, he never explained the value or financial implications of his interests in the other companies.
“Applicant's silence in relation to the rest of the companies is therefore held against him as an indicator of lack of probity,” Justice Maxwell ruled.
Reporting by iHarare News confirmed that the businessman's financial evidence came under direct questioning from the bench, with the court noting he had been paying AUD15,000 monthly since March 2026 and presented this as proof of his commitment to clearing the debt. Justice Maxwell was not persuaded that a desire to escape an inconvenient financial commitment justified judicial intervention.
“It seems the applicant is regretting having committed himself to such a payment schedule. Regret without good cause is not enough,” the judge said.
What the former wife told the court
Marina Pamela Siddiqui opposed the application, arguing that her former husband was already in arrears of AUD138,334 on an instalment that fell due on June 7, 2026. She accused him of changing the payment arrangements on his own, without her consent and without an order authorising the variation.
She was not opposed to monthly payments in principle. Her position was straightforward: the full annual instalment had to be paid by June 7 each year. Siddiqui's proposal would have produced annual payments of AUD180,000, below the agreed annual instalment of AUD183,344.
Coverage by Zimbabwe News Now similarly reported that the businessman failed to prove his financial circumstances had deteriorated enough to justify changing the payment terms.
A lesson in accountability for our times
There is something refreshing about a court that refuses to bend to a wealthy man's convenience. In a country where ordinary citizens battle daily to honour their obligations, squeezed by an economy distorted by illegal Western sanctions, no one is above the discipline of a court order. The poor do not get to renegotiate their rents because times are hard. A businessman with shares in seven companies cannot expect special treatment either.
Justice Maxwell's ruling sends a clear message to those who sign consent papers hoping to escape them later: the High Court of Zimbabwe demands probity, full disclosure and hard figures. Anything less will be held against you.
The couple married on March 23, 2021, and entered into the settlement agreement during divorce proceedings. Siddiqui signed the consent paper on March 24, 2024, after his former wife had signed it. He approached the High Court for a variation on June 9, 2026, and failed to persuade the court that his finances justified changing the existing order.
The dismissal leaves the original settlement terms intact, and the arrears of AUD138,334 still standing.
FAQ
What did Justice Fatima Maxwell rule?
She dismissed Shahid Siddiqui's application to restructure an AUD700,000 divorce settlement, ruling he had not demonstrated a substantial change in his financial circumstances since agreeing to the payment terms.
How much had Siddiqui already paid?
He told the court he had paid AUD342,519 of the AUD700,000 settlement, and that he had been paying AUD15,000 monthly since March 2026.
What law did he rely on?
He brought the application under Section 9 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which allows courts to vary, suspend or rescind certain orders where good cause is established.
What happens next?
The original settlement terms stand. Siddiqui remains in arrears of AUD138,334 on the instalment that fell due on June 7, 2026.