DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw 22 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 burden of maintenance. Such a spouse should be saddled with the burden of arrear maintenance whenever it is apposite to grant it – Lindsay v Lindsay (supra) at 202 E-G. DISPOSITION [48] The High court Rules permit a court hearing an application to allow any person to give oral evidence if it is in the interest of justice for such evidence to be heard (Rules 229B and 239 (b). Alternatively the court can direct that the matter be referred to trial. In the circumstances of this case, the court a quo should itself have heard evidence in order to properly determine the issues before it. [49] On the question of costs, I am of the view that the opposition to the upward variation of the children’s maintenance was unnecessary and unreasonable. Further, I find the use of intemperate language such as “arrant nonsense” unacceptable in a court of law. I consider that the respondent should therefore be made to pay the costs on the higher scale. [50] In the result, it is ordered as follows:1. The appeal succeeds with the respondent paying the costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client. 2. The judgment of the court a quo is set aside. 3. The matter is remitted to the High Court for the resolution of the following issues, with viva voce evidence being led, if necessary:a) The extent of the upward variation of the maintenance payable in respect of each of the children,