Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:38:38.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The status of women in Zimbabwe: Veneria Magaya v. Nakayi Shonhiwa Magaya (SC 210/98)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Simon Coldham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1999 , pp. 248 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Amy Shups Tsanga, a law lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe, is quoted as commenting that “Zimbabwe has chosen to regress into the dark ages as far as women's rights are concerned”. Guardian (London), 20 05, 1999.Google Scholar

2 In any case section 12(4)(a) of the Customary Law and Primary Courts Act, 1981 (as amended) imposed a duty on a husband to maintain his wife during the marriage and, after the dissolution of their marriage, until her remarriage.

3 Quoted in Katekwe from the zimbabiwe Herald, 6 September. 1983.

4 For a commentary on this Act see Simon, Coldham, [1998] J.A.L. 129.Google Scholar

5 Discussed above.

6 Although in any case involving guardianship or custody the interests of the child are the paramount consideration, the courts will generally prefer the mother's guardian to the father. Ironically, by virtue of section 6(3)(b) of the Maintenance Act (introduced by the Customary Law and Local Courts Act, 1990 Sched., Part III, s. 4), both parents are to be regarded as primarily and jointly liable for the maintenance of their child/children.

7 Katekwe, had, of course, delinked roora from custody rights, and it appears that since Katekwe Community Courts have been awarding guardianship to African women. See W., Ncube, Family Law in Zimbabwe (Harare, 1989), s. 118.Google Scholar

8 In Lopez v. Nxumalo SC 115/85 the Supreme Court allowed a married African woman to sue for damages in respect of her minor daughter. It seems clear that this decision is implicitly overruled by Magaya.

9 In Jenah v. Nyemba SC 49/86 the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a married African woman could not institute a claim for property without the assistance of her husband. After Magaya such an argument would be likely to succeed.

10 Supreme Court Art, no. 3 of 1981, Ch. 7.13 (Statute Law of Zimbabwe, Revised Edition 1996), s. 26(2).