DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw 9 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 DETERMINATION OF THE COURT A QUO [17] In its judgment, the court a quo was of the opinion that the application was an attempt to amend the consent paper on the basis that the settlement had not been fair. The court also found that there were contentious issues that required full ventilation. Despite that finding, the court found that the appellant had no good cause for variation because she was attempting to revisit the agreement which the parties had entered into and that the appellant appeared to have had a rethink on the position she had earlier accepted. The court accordingly found that the appellant had not shown any change of circumstances amounting to good cause as to warrant variation of the maintenance paid to her and the children. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application with costs. Hence the present appeal. GROUNDS OF APPEAL [18] In her amended grounds, the appellant has raised seven grounds of appeal. These are:“1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The court a quo made a gross misdirection on the facts, amounting to a misdirection in law, in mistaking the factual Application a quo for a variation of a Consent Paper, rather than for an upward variation in maintenance. The court a quo made a gross misdirection on the facts, amounting to a misdirection in law, in not exercising its equitable discretion at all, whether by value judgment or assessment, notwithstanding facts proffered which manifested good cause for the relief sought of a variation in maintenance. The court a quo made a gross misdirection on the facts, amounting to a misdirection in law, in finding that the appellant had not shown a change in circumstances warranting good cause for the variations sought, as this ignored the facts and figures sworn to in her founding affidavit. The court a quo made a gross misdirection on the facts, amounting to a misdirection in law, in allowing extraneous and irrelevant matters to affect its decision, namely considerations pertinent to variation of a Consent Paper, rather than applying its equitable discretion meru motu and exercising its value judgment to salient factors pertaining to the costs of living. The court a quo made a gross misdirection on the facts, amounting to a misdirection in law, and applied the wrong principle, namely, in not recognising that the appellant’s Answering Affidavit pertained to evidence in rebuttal