DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw 10 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 requiring denial from Respondent, failing which the allegations in the Answering Affidavit were deemed to be admitted. 6. The court a quo made a gross misdirection on the facts, amounting to a misdirection in law, in overlooking respondent’s deemed admissions which precluded a finding that there were disputes of fact militating against the exercise of an equitable discretion in appellant’s favour. 7. In the circumstances, the court a quo made a gross misdirection on the facts, amounting to a misdirection in law, in not drawing an adverse inference on respondent’s failure to deny the evidence in rebuttal.” APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS ON APPEAL [19] The appellant has submitted that the application before the court a quo was for the upward variation in, and extension of the period of, maintenance payable by the respondent to the appellant. Notwithstanding that she had shown that she was in need, that the respondent could afford the amount claimed, that there had been a change in her circumstances, the court dismissed the claim in its entirety. Further, although there were disputes of fact, the court had the power to take a robust approach and determine the matter. In her view the court a quo should have drawn an adverse inference on the respondent’s failure to rebut the contents of the documents which she attached to her answering affidavit which showed that the respondent was a man of means. Lastly she submitted that the amounts of $2 000 payable to her per annum and $100 per month for the upkeep of the children are obviously inadequate. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS ON APPEAL [20] The respondent has made a number of submissions. First, that the grounds of appeal are vague. Misdirections are alleged but none are illustrated. Secondly, the grounds do not show how the court erred in the exercise of its discretion. Thirdly, the court a quo could not have granted the relief sought without at the same time varying the terms of the consent order. In the absence of an application to rescind the consent paper, the court a quo could not have revisited the contents of that consent paper. The appellant had, however, made it clear in her