DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 41 /18 Civil Appeal No. SC 326/14 It is not an issue that the Acquiring Authority owns the farm which it allocated and subsequently leased to the respondent for his and his family’s benefit. On page 1 of the lease agreement the word “lessee” is defined as follows: “In relation to any person who holds land under this lease, lessee shall mean that person and his spouse or spouses jointly.” There is therefore no doubt that the appellant has rights and interests in the farm as a joint lessee by virtue of her being the respondent’s erstwhile wife. It is clear that the lease was granted for the respondent’s and appellant’s benefit. The use of the word “jointly” means they were both intended to benefit from the farm. The Acquiring Authority however, has the exclusive right to allocate or lease the farm. In terms of para 29 of the Lease Agreement: “No variation or amendment of it is valid unless it is put in writing and signed by both parties”. This means any variation including that of adjusting the order of lessees must be in writing and signed by the Acquiring Authority and the respondent. The courts cannot create a contract for the parties. There are however benefits and advantages which flow from the lease, which are capable of being distributed by the courts in terms of s 7(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Act which provides as follows: “(4) In making an order in terms of subsection (1) an appropriate court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following— (a) the income-earning capacity, assets and other financial resources which each spouse and child has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; 7