The Sunday Mail
Tendai Mbirimi
SHARON Macheso and Kudakwashe Munetsi; call them 2014 news-makers or noise-makers; whatever! The truth is that their wedding attracted the attention of many.
The pre-wedding preparation was puffed up as befitting the daughter of a celebrated music icon. Precincts were set so as to counter would-be gate crashers to the wedding.
And so the wedding and unending marital bliss was expected to follow.
It’s not one’s wish or any parent’s wish to be associated with a wedding ceremony whose culmination is nigh. But for Sharon and Kudakwashe, the gods decided otherwise.
When the news of their in-house distress began to circulate, it was said that one of the contentious issues which led to their fallout, among other issues, was that of wedding gifts. It is claimed that Munetsi last saw all the presents during the wedding.
Upon probing the whereabouts of the presents, it later dawned on Munetsi that they were kept at his in-laws’ place.
It is alleged that his relatives and friends had brought few gifts as compared to Sharon’s relatives and friends and this gave Sharon total control of the presents.
Public debate came up with different assertions as to who owns wedding presents. Some say they belong to the couple while some opine that they belong to the bride.
Generally in determining ownership of wedding gifts, from a European perspective to which Zimbabwean weddings owe orientation, expressed intention of the donor and the intention of the wedded couple are considered.
In the absence of proof, sometimes gifts are presumed to be for joint ownership and sometimes presumed to be for one of the parties. These presumptions are made based on the use of gifts. If it is found that a particular gift is of use by both the parties, that gift is presumed to be for joint ownership. However, if the gift is found useful only to the wife or the husband, the gift will be presumed to be for either of them.
In a 1982 case before a US bankruptcy court, the court had to decide on the ownership of a gift received by a couple.
The wife claimed ownership of the gift. She testified that she received the gift at her parents’ home from a friend of her family prior to her marriage.
The court considered the expressed intention of the donor and the intention of the wedded couple.
The court found that the wife’s testimony showed the intention of the donor to give the gift to the wife rather than to the couple jointly. Hence, the court ruled ownership in favour of the wife.
In a case before a New York Supreme Court in 1965, the court had to decide the ownership of some household gifts received by a wedded couple during their marriage.
The court observed that household property obtained for general use of husband and wife is deemed to be the property of both of them in the absence of proof to the contrary. In this case, the court held that the wedding gifts are joint property of husband and wife and that the wife is entitled to one half thereof or the value of her one-half share.
Thus, the main factors considered by courts in deciding the ownership of wedding gifts in a marriage includes; donor’s intention, use of the gift and intention of the couple. This is a European perspective of a marriage institution.
But from a Zimbabwean perspective, is the issue of identifying wedding presents with their sources healthy for a marriage, and does this represent the values of ubuntu? Does this preserve the sacredness of the marriage institution as it should be?
Even the roadside soothsayer knows it and preaches about it —“once married you are no longer two but one”.
Property disagreements can result in conflict-ridden marriages and the result is divorce.
