DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw 12 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 whilst others, though listed as separate grounds, duplicated issues already raised in other grounds. Mr Uriri accepted that although the grounds are not very clear, one can discern from ground 1 and 2 what the appellant seeks to impugn. In response, Mr Fitches accepted that some of the grounds merely repeated what had been raised in earlier grounds. He was content to abandon the rest of the grounds and rely on grounds 1 and 2 only. This appeal will therefore be confined to those two grounds. [23] It is necessary, however, to re-state the need for grounds of appeal to be clear and concise. In the absence of such clarity, grounds of appeal that are vague and lack conciseness stand to be struck out. Grounds 3 to 7 clearly do not comply with the requirement that grounds of appeal must be concise. They are in any event argumentative and repetitive. In the circumstances, those grounds are struck out. The remaining two grounds deal with the issue firstly, whether there was need, before the application for variation was filed, for the rescission of the consent paper and, secondly, whether the court a quo was correct in finding that no good cause for a variation had been shown. WHETHER THERE WAS NEED TO VARY THE CONSENT PAPER [24] The respondent argued that since the parties had voluntarily agreed to the issues of maintenance by way of a consent paper, the court could not rewrite the agreement for the parties by allowing the appellant an upward variation of the maintenance amount stated therein. It was argued that, in these circumstances, the appellant should have sought rescission or withdrawal of the consent paper and that good cause for such rescission had to be shown. In