Supreme court enforces UK divorce order in case involving former Anglican bishop

Zimbabwe’s Supreme Court has upheld the enforcement of a United Kingdom divorce order involving the former Bishop of Manicaland, the Rt. Rev. Julius Makoni—affirming the authority of English court rulings over matrimonial property under Zimbabwean law. Bishop Makoni, a former investment banker who became a leading figure in Zimbabwe’s Anglican hierarchy, resigned his post in 2015 to take a position with the International Monetary Fund. A decade later, he has found himself embroiled in a transnational legal dispute with his ex-wife, Pauline Mutsa Makoni, over matrimonial property in London and Harare. Bishop Makoni, who served as the Diocesan bishop of Manicaland from 2009 to 2015, was one of the key figures in the restoration of the Anglican Diocese in the wake of the contentious Nolbert Kunonga schism. His years as bishop were marked by efforts to rebuild the spiritual and administrative health of a diocese ravaged by ecclesiastical division and state interference. But his personal life made headlines after he and his wife divorced in the UK, where they had legal residency. The English High Court finalized their divorce in December 2014 and awarded Mrs. Makoni substantial financial compensation, including the couple’s marital home in Harare. When Mrs. Makoni sought to have the English orders recognized and enforced in Zimbabwe, Bishop Makoni objected—arguing that the UK ruling was inconsistent with Zimbabwe’s laws and public policy, particularly when it came to property distribution. He contended that Zimbabwean courts should not recognize foreign judgments that conferred domestic property to a foreign-domiciled spouse. But in a landmark decision handed down last week, Zimbabwe’s Supreme Court dismissed Bishop Makoni’s objections. The bench held that foreign divorce judgments—especially those issued by superior courts in jurisdictions such as the UK—are enforceable in Zimbabwe, provided due process was followed and the ruling does not offend local public policy. The ruling clarified that even where Zimbabwean courts may have ruled differently in terms of asset division, they are bound by the principle of international comity and legal reciprocity to acknowledge the authority of foreign courts—particularly where both parties were properly represented. This decision sets a precedent in Zimbabwean jurisprudence, specifically regarding cross-border matrimonial disputes, at a time when an increasing number of Zimbabweans reside or hold assets abroad but maintain ties to their home country. The case carries allegorical weight for the Zimbabwean church. Just as provinces throughout the Global South have historically resisted directives from England on matters of doctrine, the question posed before Zimbabwe’s courts was whether English authority could shape realities on Zimbabwean soil. Ironically, the court’s decision stands in contrast with the ecclesiastical trend: while Zimbabwean bishops and church bodies have increasingly asserted independence from Canterbury in matters of theology and liturgy, here the state court has chosen deference to English legal authority. The case also raises difficult questions for Church leaders involved in civil litigation—particularly when it relates to personal conduct and stewardship of property. While clergy and bishops are often held to high standards within the Church’s pastoral framework, many also own assets or reside across multiple jurisdictions. More importantly, it sends a message to Church leaders, lay or ordained, that positions of ecclesiastical authority do not confer immunity in the courts of law. The juxtaposition of Bishop Makoni’s spiritual authority and his civil defeat may be uncomfortable for some within the Anglican establishment. For others, it demonstrates the maturing of Zimbabwe’s judiciary—holding sacred and secular spheres in check while respecting the rule of law across borders.