Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
A bid by Sungura artiste Alick Machesoâs estranged wife Tafadzwa Fortunate Mapako to have the monthly maintenance for her upkeep and that of their children increased from $1 030 to $7 130 hit a snag after the High Court dismissed her appeal for failure to file the requisite papers.
The registrar of the High Court dismissed the appeal because Ms Mapako had failed to file the heads of argument within the expected timeframe in breach of the High Court rules.
In a notice for dismissal dated January 30 this year, the registrar said Ms Mapako was expected to have filed her papers between December 4 and December 30 last year but she did not do anything.
âI refer to our letter of the 4th of December 2014 in which the appellant (F Mapako) was called upon to file heads of argument by the 30th of December 2014.
âTo date, no such heads of argument have been received and accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed,â reads part of the document.
The registrar of the High Court said he would return the record of appeal to the magistrateâs court for the lower courtâs earlier judgment of $1 030 monthly maintenance to be executed.
Harare lawyer Mr Norman Mugiya represented the artiste while Hamunakwadi, Nyandoro and Nyambuya law firm acted for Ms Mapako.
The development has been a victory to Macheso who had been complaining of the exorbitant $7 130 claim.
Last year Harare magistrate Mr Tafadzwa Muvhami gave a $1 030 maintenance order and directed the parties to conduct DNA tests to determine paternity of the children, Alick and Allexyn, on or before June 6, 2014.
However, the tests confirmed Macheso as the father of the children.
In the notice of appeal filed at the High Court Ms Mapako argued that the lower court erred in various respects in slashing her claim.
âThe court erred at law by ordering appellant to contribute 50 percent share towards accommodation and utility bills yet the same court correctly made a finding that appellant is unemployed and hence a person of no means.
âThe court a quo erred at law by employing the basic necessity as opposed to the lifestyle and social status test in determining the appropriate monetary maintenance for appellant and the two minor children.â
Mapako said the court failed at law when it ruled that she did not need a personal driver even though she did not have a driverâs licence or a car.
At the time, she noted, the same court granted her a fuel allowance.
Mapako says she proved to the court that Macheso could pay $7 130.
Magistrate Mr Muvhami rejected several of Mapakoâs demands, saying only food, medical, clothing, fuel, accommodation and utility bills were important.
For the childrenâs welfare, Macheso was ordered to pay $750 ($350 rentals, $200 food, $40 clothes, $50 water, $80 medical and $30 fuel).He was also ordered to pay $280 for Mapakoâs food, medicals and clothing, bringing the total to $1 030.
Later on Macheso divorced Mapako and had his maintenance payments downsized to $750 a month to cater for the children. Then he applied for a downward variation citing lowered income and the figure was reduced to $450 per month which is where it now stands.