How Hiding Assets In A Divorce Can Cost You Everything
A recent landmark ruling from Zimbabwe’s Supreme Court has delivered a powerful warning to spouses contemplating hiding assets during divorce proceedings. The case of Makoni v Makoni underscores that failing to provide a full and frank disclosure of one’s wealth can lead to severe financial penalties and will not be tolerated by the courts, whether local or foreign. This judgment, which enforced a United Kingdom divorce order, highlights the universal legal principle that transparency is paramount in achieving a fair settlement.
The Makoni Case: A Tale of Non-Disclosure
The dispute involved former banker-turned-bishop Julius Makoni and his ex-wife, Pauline Mutsa Makoni. The couple, married in Harare in 1983, had lived in both Zimbabwe and the UK before separating in 2010. Pauline initiated divorce proceedings in the UK, which culminated in a final financial order in December 2014.
A central finding of the English court was that Julius Makoni had failed to make a full disclosure of his assets. Specifically, the court found he had attempted to conceal his interests in the Cornerstone Trust and shares in NMBZ. This material non-disclosure proved to be a pivotal factor. The English court, applying the principle from the case NG v SG (Appeal–Non-Disclosure), held that a non-discloser should not benefit from their deception. Consequently, the court awarded Pauline significant properties, including the matrimonial home in Harare and a stand in Chishawasha Hills.
Julius Makoni challenged the enforcement of this order in Zimbabwe, arguing it was contrary to public policy as it left him “homeless.” The High Court initially agreed with him in 2023. However, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned this decision in July 2025, firmly rejecting his arguments.
Why the Supreme Court Upheld the Foreign Order
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was robust and clear. It found that the English court had applied equitable principles “strikingly similar to our own.” Justice Samuel Kudya, delivering the judgment, stated that Makoni’s “material non-disclosure constitutes a lie. It is a wrong. Our courts do not reward the perpetrator of a wrong.”
The court also noted that Makoni had not challenged the UK court’s jurisdiction during the original proceedings and had even attempted to appeal there, which was dismissed. Furthermore, the Supreme Court detailed that despite his claims, Makoni retained extensive assets, including NMBZ shares valued at over US$1.3 million and other properties, concluding that the overall benefit he received from the settlement was “much higher” than Pauline’s, which was just under US$500,000.
How Are Foreign Divorce Orders Recognised in Zimbabwe?
This case sets a critical precedent for the recognition of foreign divorce judgments in Zimbabwe. The process is governed by law, and understanding it is crucial for diaspora couples.
-
The Legal Basis: Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act provides for the recognition of foreign divorce, judicial separation, or nullity of marriage orders.
-
The ‘Why’: Registering a foreign divorce order in Zimbabwe is essential to update one’s marital status officially. Without this, the parties may still be considered legally married in Zimbabwe, which can affect rights to remarry, property ownership, and inheritance.
-
The ‘How’: Parties must apply to the High Court of Zimbabwe (for civil marriages) or the Magistrate’s Court (for customary marriages) to have their foreign decree recognised and registered. This typically involves submitting the foreign divorce order and other supporting documents through a Zimbabwean lawyer.
Common Mistakes to Avoid During Divorce Proceedings
The Makoni case provides a stark lesson in what not to do. Based on this and broader research into rising divorce cases in Zimbabwe, here are common pitfalls:
-
Hiding Assets: As demonstrated, this is a high-risk strategy that can drastically backfire, leading to a less favourable settlement and legal costs.
-
Failing to Seek Specialist Legal Advice: Divorce, especially with cross-border elements, is complex. Both parties in the Makoni case were represented by “highly experienced specialist solicitors and barristers,” underscoring the need for expert guidance.
-
Rushing into Litigation Without Exploring Agreement: An uncontested divorce, where parties agree on terms, is generally faster, less expensive, and less emotionally draining than a contested one. Exploring mediation or collaborative law can preserve family resources and relationships.
-
Ignoring Jurisdictional Issues: For couples living across borders, it is vital to understand which court has jurisdiction and the implications of that choice. Proactive legal advice is key.
-
Letting Emotion Override Pragmatism: While divorce is emotionally charged, allowing anger or a desire for retribution to drive decisions often leads to prolonged conflict and higher costs, ultimately harming all involved, especially children.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Makoni v Makoni is a powerful affirmation of the principle of fairness in divorce. It sends an unambiguous message that the courts will not assist a spouse who has attempted to pervert the course of justice through non-disclosure. For anyone navigating a divorce, particularly one with international dimensions, the path to a fair outcome is built on transparency, qualified legal counsel, and a commitment to the legal process. The case reinforces that the consequences of deception are severe and can transcend borders.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational and awareness purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not a substitute for advice from a registered legal practitioner. Laws, procedures and court practice change over time; you should consult a qualified, registered lawyer in Zimbabwe (or a lawyer authorised to practise where your matter arises) before taking any steps based on the information in this article. Neither the author nor the publication accepts responsibility for any loss or consequence arising from reliance on this material.