Dionne Kanyowa
A WIDOW was sentenced to one month if she did not reimburse the 7,5 tonnes of maize she took from her late husband’s farm despite a court order that had barred her from interfering with its administration.
Betty Zungunde had been ordered by the High Court in 2020 to stop interfering with the administration of Flavian Chikabida’s estate after the Master of the High Court nullified their customary marriage.
However, a year later, Chikabida’s daughter Miriro Susan who was the executor to her father’s estate, approached the High Court again seeking for the custodial committal of Zungunde in prison as she was defying its order.
Justice Fatima Maxwell who presided over the matter last week, found Zungunde on the wrong side of the law.
“Clearly, the first respondent willfully disobeyed the court order by resorting to self-help. Self-help is frowned upon by the law because it is inimical to the rule of law. An order for the first respondent‘s committal to prison is therefore warranted.
“However, I am of the view that the period requested by the applicant is not justified. An initial committal of a month should send the message home that court orders are not defied willy-nilly. The respondent be and is hereby committed to prison for a period of 30 days or until such a time as she has complied with the order in HC 3434/20 by reimbursing to the estate the value of the 7,5 tonnes of maize,” ruled Maxwell.
Before his death, Flavian had entered into a lease agreement with one farmer who rented his land in exchange of 15 percent of his produce as rentals.
Zungunde is said to have gone behind Miriro’s back and started collecting the rentals for herself, thereby acting in contempt of the order granted against her. After she was confrontated, Zungunde is said to have admitted to Miriro that she was in possession of 7,5 tonnes of maize she had received from the rentals and had no intention of returning it.
However, in response to the application that was brought by Miriro, Zungunde acknowledged the order granted against her but argued that the farm was not part of the deceased’s estate.
She also insisted that she was living on the proceeds of the farm and paying fees for her late husband’s children.