The Supreme Court has upheld a High Court ruling reinstating magistrate Sandra Mupindu as a trustee of a family trust, dealing a fresh blow to her estranged husband, prominent Harare lawyer Simon Mupindu, in a long-running and highly publicised legal feud.
In dismissing an appeal by Simon Mupindu and his co-appellants, the apex court confirmed that the removal of the magistrate from the Shamba Charashika Bvumavaranda Trust and the appointment of Simon’s new partner, Catherine Tatenda Chitopota, were unlawful and procedurally defective.
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s finding that Mupindu’s ouster as trustee was fundamentally flawed, endorsing the conclusion that it was done without her knowledge or consent and in breach of the trust deed.
“The removal of the applicant as a trustee was not procedurally done,” the court said, echoing the High Court’s reasoning. “The appointment of the third respondent as a trustee was not procedurally done either. The applicant is entitled to the declaratory order sought.”
The dispute arises from a bitter fallout between the couple, who are in the midst of a contested divorce after Simon Mupindu left his wife for Chitopota, a former intern at his law firm. Simon, who filed for divorce, is now living with Chitopota, with whom he has three children.
At the centre of the legal battle is a family trust created in 2014 to safeguard assets for the benefit of the couple’s children. Both Sandra and Simon Mupindu were listed as trustees. Sandra Mupindu told the courts that her husband secretly amended the trust deed in 2023, removing her as trustee and replacing her with Chitopota, allegedly appending her signature fraudulently to documents authorising the changes.
She further alleged that two properties held under the trust were sold without her involvement.
Simon Mupindu argued that the trust was his initiative and that his wife’s role as trustee was merely symbolic. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding that his unilateral actions violated the trust deed, which restricted changes to trustee appointments.
In a stinging rebuke carried through on appeal, the courts also dismissed preliminary objections raised by Simon Mupindu, his law firm Mupindu Legal Practitioners, and Chitopota, including claims of pending litigation and misjoinder. Costs were awarded against them on a punitive legal practitioner-client scale.
The Supreme Court ruling comes against the backdrop of parallel litigation between the trio. In separate proceedings, Sandra Mupindu has sued Chitopota for adultery, accusing her of “intruding into the marriage institution” and causing the breakdown of the union. Chitopota unsuccessfully sought to have the adultery claim thrown out, arguing prescription and non-joinder of Simon Mupindu.
In rejecting those arguments, High Court judge Fatima Maxwell ruled that adultery constituted a continuing wrong. “It was not a one-off incident,” the judge said, noting that the sexual relationship allegedly continued even after summons were issued. “As it was not disputed that the acts of sexual intercourse are continuing, the defence of prescription cannot succeed.”
