A property dispute involving a divorced couple in Zambia has sparked debate online after Lusaka lawyer Dickson Jere shared details of a court case involving a man seeking a share of his ex-wife’s house despite the property being acquired before marriage.
According to Jere, the woman bought a plot in Meanwood in 2007 and started constructing a house on the property years before getting married in 2013. By the time she entered marriage under customary law, the house had reportedly already reached window level.
However, during the marriage, the husband allegedly contributed towards completing the house, including obtaining a bank loan worth over K300,000 to purchase roofing sheets and other building materials.
The marriage later collapsed, leading to divorce proceedings in 2021 before a Local Court. The court initially ruled that the property should be shared equally between the former couple on a 50/50 basis.
Unhappy with the decision, the woman appealed, arguing that the property was acquired long before marriage and therefore could not be classified as matrimonial property. She admitted that her former husband contributed toward completion of the house but maintained that his role was minimal compared to her original investment.
The Magistrate Court later overturned the Local Court’s ruling and instead awarded the former husband only 20 percent of the property proceeds.
The man, dissatisfied with receiving 20 percent, appealed to the High Court insisting he deserved half of the property.
While hearing the appeal, the High Court acknowledged that the woman independently acquired the land and started the construction before marriage. However, the court also recognized that the ex-husband had produced evidence showing he financially contributed to the completion of the house.
The Judge emphasized that courts cannot simply estimate percentages without proper proof of contribution from both parties.
“Each party must present cogent and tangible evidence of their contribution, whether financial or non financial,” the Judge stated.
The court further warned against using “guess work” when dividing property in matrimonial disputes without documented evidence.
“To do so would risk substituting conjecture for evidence as to what either of the party’s contribution was towards the building and completion of the property,” the Judge added.
As a result, the High Court set aside the earlier 80/20 sharing formula and directed both parties to appear before the Registrar with receipts, financial documents, and records showing how much each contributed toward the house completion.
The court clarified that the assessment would only focus on construction works done after the house had reached window level, since it was undisputed that the woman alone acquired the plot and started the project before marriage.
“Bearing in mind that the Appellant’s entitlement lies in his contribution to the completion rather than in the original acquisition,” the court guided.
The case, cited as Chisanga v Samasumo – 2024/HP/A/063, was delivered on Monday, May 18, 2026.
The ruling has since generated discussion among many Zambians on the importance of keeping receipts, financial records, and documentation when investing jointly in property or construction projects during marriage.
Legal experts say the case may become an important reference point in future matrimonial property disputes involving customary marriages and shared investments.
