Antony Chawagarira
HARARE – An urgent High Court battle has erupted between businessman Wicknell Munodaani Chivayo and Sonja Louise Madzikanda after Chivayo moved to challenge the reinstatement of an anti-dissipation order which he says has crippled his financial operations and exposed him to possible contempt of court proceedings.
The matter is before the High Court of Zimbabwe in Harare under multiple case references, including HCHF/62/26, which Chivayo says underpins the anti-dissipation order; HCHF/892/26, a consent order that imposes financial obligations; and HCHF/1764/26, the urgent chamber application now being contested by the parties.
Court papers relied on by the applicant state that the parties were married customarily and that their union was terminated in 2024 following the payment and acceptance of gupuro, commonly referred to as a divorce token. The documents further state that the court resolved the maintenance of the parties’ minor children through a consent order in HCHF/892/26, and that those obligations form part of the financial arrangements now said to be placed under pressure by the revived anti-dissipation order.
The documents also explain that in HCHF/62/26, Madzikanda is claiming various relief that the application says is premised on the existence of a marriage. The relief described includes claims relating to dissolution of the marriage, a declaration of the existence of a marriage, and consequential orders touching on spousal maintenance and the division of assets.
According to the application, while HCHF/62/26 was pending, Madzikanda approached courts in the Republic of South Africa for anti-dissipation relief against bank accounts and assets tied to companies controlled by Chivayo. The urgent application states that the South African court granted an anti-dissipation order freezing bank accounts and grounding a private jet said to be owned by companies controlled by the applicant.
Chivayo’s immediate grievance, however, centres on what the application describes as the revival of the anti-dissipation order. It states that although the order had initially lapsed, it was resuscitated on April 23, 2026, meaning, as the papers put it, that the harm has been reactivated. Chivayo argues that the reinstatement has effectively frozen access to his funds and has made his business entities unable to function in the ordinary course to the extent that they no longer have finances to fund daily operations, including paying salaries, rent and taxes as and when these arise.
The papers further argue that the renewed financial constraints make it difficult, and in practice leave him at risk, in meeting his monthly obligations arising from the consent order in HCHF/892/26, thereby exposing him to the possibility of being held in contempt of court. The application also argues that the situation is prejudicial to the minor children for whose benefit the financial obligations under HCHF/892/26 exist, emphasising that the court bears a duty of protection over the children as their ultimate guardian. The urgent relief is therefore presented as necessary to prevent the consequences that Chivayo claims flow from the revived anti-dissipation order.
Chivayo maintains that the application is urgent, stating that it was filed within eight business days and 12 ordinary days after the reinstatement of the order, and that the matter could not wait because of the imminent threat of contempt and the harm allegedly occurring to the children.
At the centre of Chivayo’s case is HCHF/62/26, which he seeks to have dismissed in terms of Rule 31 of the High Court Rules, 2021, on the basis that he views the matter as frivolous and vexatious. He argues that dismissing HCHF/62/26 would resolve the consequences that he says are flowing from the anti-dissipation order.
Madzikanda, as the respondent, has been directed to file any notice of opposition together with supporting affidavits within the time stipulated in the court papers, after service on the respondent and with the Registrar of the High Court in Harare. The documents further indicate that should the respondent fail to file opposing papers within the required period, the application may be set down for hearing without further notice and dealt with as an unopposed matter.
An anti-dissipation order is a legal mechanism used by courts to prevent a party from disposing of or concealing assets while litigation is ongoing. Its purpose is to preserve property or funds so that, if a judgment is made, there are assets available to satisfy it. However, such orders can significantly limit access to finances, often disrupting business operations and an individual’s ability to meet ongoing obligations.
