The High Court has granted a decree of divorce to Khetiwe Van der Sanden and awarded her ownership of the Greendale matrimonial home, bringing to an end a protracted legal dispute complicated by a contested property sale conducted during the subsistence of the marriage.
In a judgment delivered in Harare, Justice Amy Tsanga ruled that Subdivision 6 of Lot 1A Greendale, measuring 4,107 square metres and commonly known as No. 3 Rhodesville Avenue, together with all household goods at the property, be awarded to the plaintiff.
Her estranged husband, Robertus Antoine Willy Van der Sanden, will retain all movable and immovable property owned by him in Europe. The marriage, contracted in Zimbabwe in December 2000, was found to have irretrievably broken down. The proceedings became unopposed after Van der Sanden withdrew his defence in May 2025.
The matter was complicated by claims from businessman Bright Mugorogodi, who was joined as a second defendant after alleging that he had purchased the Greendale property from Van der Sanden in November 2018 for US$220,000 and obtained title under Deed of Transfer 3671/2019.
Mugorogodi sought a declaratory order confirming the validity of the sale and transfer, eviction of the plaintiff, and ancillary relief. In the alternative, he sought cancellation of the transaction with restitution.
He argued that his counterclaim remained extant despite Van der Sanden’s withdrawal from the divorce proceedings and that the court could not determine the divorce without first resolving his property claim.
Related Stories
Justice Tsanga rejected that argument, holding that the validity of the sale and transfer had already been fully litigated and conclusively determined in earlier proceedings.
In Brighton Mugorogodi v Khetiwe Van der Sanden (HH 398/22), the High Court found that the sale and subsequent transfer were fraudulent and a legal nullity, having been intended to defeat the plaintiff’s matrimonial property rights. That finding remained undisturbed after Mugorogodi’s appeal was dismissed by consent in the Supreme Court.
The court ruled that the plaintiff’s failure to plead to Mugorogodi’s counterclaim in the divorce proceedings could not override an existing judgment declaring the transaction void.
In its analysis, the court relied on established Supreme Court authority that sham transactions entered into to frustrate property sharing upon divorce cannot defeat a spouse’s rights under section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act.
Justice Tsanga held that any claim Mugorogodi may have arising from the impugned sale lies against Van der Sanden alone and must be pursued separately, rather than within the divorce proceedings.
With Van der Sanden having withdrawn his opposition and effectively conceding the Greendale property to his wife, the court proceeded to determine the matrimonial property dispute on an unopposed basis.
The court accordingly dismissed Mugorogodi’s counterclaim against the plaintiff and granted the divorce and ancillary relief sought, bringing finality to the matrimonial dispute while leaving open the possibility of separate civil proceedings between Mugorogodi and Van der Sanden arising from the failed property transaction.
Leave Comments