A Lusaka-based lawyer has highlighted an important court ruling that explains when a husband can be removed from the matrimonial home under Zambia’s Anti-Gender Based Violence Act.
According to lawyer Dickson Jere, the case involved a married couple whose relationship had deteriorated due to allegations of physical violence, emotional abuse and constant conflict that had also begun affecting their children.
The wife petitioned the court for protection, alleging that her husband repeatedly assaulted her whenever she questioned him about his relationship with another woman, whom she claimed he financially supported by paying rent and buying a vehicle. She also told the court that discovering HIV-related medication in her husband’s car caused her significant emotional distress after he allegedly failed to provide satisfactory answers.
She asked the court to issue a Protection Order and an Occupation Order that would require her husband to leave the matrimonial home while continuing to meet his financial responsibilities, including rent and family upkeep.
In response, the husband denied being the sole aggressor, arguing that his wife had also assaulted him. He presented photographs showing injuries he allegedly sustained during their disputes.
He admitted having another woman with whom he shared a child but maintained that the financial support was solely for the child’s welfare. He also informed the court that he had begun making efforts to repair the marriage by spending time with his family and taking them shopping. He pleaded with the court not to order him out of the family home, arguing that he could not afford to maintain three separate households.
After hearing both parties, the court emphasized that the welfare of the children remained the most important consideration.
The judge observed that children often suffer the greatest emotional harm when parents engage in violent conflicts and questioned where the children had been during incidents that resulted in injuries to both parents.
Although the court granted a Protection Order directing the husband to refrain from causing any physical or psychological harm to his wife and children, it declined to issue an Occupation Order removing him from the home.
The court instead gave the husband another opportunity to demonstrate that he was committed to restoring peace within the family. It also ordered both parties to undergo counselling, expressing hope that they could rebuild their marriage in a peaceful environment for the benefit of their children.
Lawyer Dickson Jere explained that the case illustrates how Zambia’s Anti-Gender Based Violence Act of 2011 empowers courts to issue both Protection Orders and Occupation Orders in appropriate cases. An Occupation Order can require an abusive spouse to vacate the matrimonial home while continuing to provide financial support for the family where necessary.
However, he noted that each case is determined on its own facts. In this instance, the court found that while protection was necessary, the husband’s willingness to reconcile justified giving him a second chance instead of immediately removing him from the family home.
The decision also serves as a reminder that Zambian courts place the best interests of children at the centre of family disputes and will consider counselling and other interventions where there is a possibility of preserving a safe and stable family environment.
