DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw 14 Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 37/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 433/16 WHETHER THERE WERE MATERIAL DISPUTES OF FACT [27] In the court a quo the respondent submitted that there were serious disputes of fact which could not be resolved on the papers without the parties giving viva voce evidence and being cross - examined. The disputes related to the following issues: whether the maintenance payment of $2000 per annum was for the appellant personally or the children, the amount actually paid by the respondent to the appellant per month – whether it was $307 or $560 -, the identity of the assets owned by the respondent and their value, the respondent’s monthly income, the amount that the appellant herself channels towards the maintenance of the children, whether there has been an increase in the cost of living since 2009 and lastly whether the document produced by the appellant, which purports to have been prepared by the respondent and which reflects a number of assets and considerable annual income, is genuine. [28] The court a quo accepted that “there were contentious issues that require ventilation”. Despite that acceptance, the court went on to find that the appellant appeared to have realised that she had not been able to get a good bargain and for that reason was seeking to revisit the consent paper. It found that this cannot amount to good cause. Further, the court found that the appellant was aware, at the time the parties entered into a consent paper, that maintenance would be payable only until the children attained the age of majority after which they would choose who to stay with. The court further found that even the claim for an increase of maintenance for the children was not substantiated. It also found that no good cause had been shown why, having agreed that maintenance terminates when the children attained the age of majority, the appellant now wanted the respondent to maintain her in perpetuity. In the result, the court found that the appellant had not shown any change of circumstances amounting to