Divorce Drama: Man Forfeits Family Home After Failed Attempt to Hide Property in Mother’s Name

Divorce Drama: Man Forfeits Family Home After Failed Attempt to Hide Property in Mother’s Name

By Dickson Jere.

In a divorce case that exposes the lengths some will go to hide marital assets, the Lusaka High Court has delivered a scathing judgment against a man who tried to shield his family home by registering it in his mother’s name after divorce proceedings began. The landmark ruling in Twinjika v Twinjika (2020/HP/D/F/299) handed the Salama Park property to the ex-wife, while revealing a telling paper trail of deception.

The Breakdown of a Marriage
The couple’s marital troubles began in 2020 when they filed for divorce, culminating in the formal dissolution of their union in May 2021. What followed was a bitter two-year battle over their assets, particularly their Salama Park home – a property that would become the center of an extraordinary legal showdown.

During the March 2022 property settlement hearings, the court initially awarded the wife the family home along with other assets. However, when she attempted to take possession, she was shocked to discover the Certificate of Title bore her mother-in-law’s name rather than her ex-husband’s.

A House of Cards
The court proceedings uncovered a fascinating timeline:

• The property was purchased in 2019 during the marriage, with the Contract of Sale clearly showing the husband as the purchaser
• The couple lived in the home as their matrimonial residence while waiting for the title deeds to be processed
• Divorce proceedings commenced in 2020
• The property settlement hearings took place in April 2021
• Crucially, the title was registered in the mother’s name on June 2, 2021 – after settlement hearings but before final judgment

“This sequence of events speaks volumes,” the judge noted in the March 20, 2025 ruling. “The timing of the title transfer raises serious questions about the bona fides of this transaction.”

The Legal Battle
In court, the ex-wife’s legal team presented compelling arguments:

1. The 2019 sale contract proved the property was acquired during the marriage with marital funds
2. The home was expressly purchased as the family residence
3. The husband never raised any ownership objections during initial settlement hearings
4. The mother’s sudden appearance on the title coincided suspiciously with the pending judgment

“The Petitioner’s conduct suggests a deliberate attempt to frustrate the property settlement,” the judgment states. “Registering the title in his mother’s name at that particular juncture can only be viewed as an afterthought designed to shield the asset.”

The Mother Factor
Legal experts have noted the unusual aspect that the mother was never joined to the proceedings to explain her alleged ownership.

“Normally, courts are reluctant to make determinations that affect third parties not before them,” explained prominent family lawyer Maureen Mwanawasa. “However, in this case, the overwhelming evidence of the timing and circumstances surrounding the title transfer created an exceptional situation where the court felt compelled to act.”

The Final Judgment
In his decisive ruling, Justice [Redacted] made several key findings:

1. The property was legitimately acquired as a matrimonial home using marital funds
2. The husband’s failure to raise ownership claims during initial hearings was telling
3. The timing of the title transfer to the mother was highly suspect
4. The property rightfully formed part of the marital estate

The court therefore:

• Declared the Salama Park home to be matrimonial property
• Vested full ownership in the ex-wife
• Additionally awarded her a Mercedes Benz C-Class vehicle (registration number withheld)
• Established that last-minute title transfers cannot override prior marital claims

A Warning to Others
Family law practitioners say this judgment sends a clear message to divorcing couples attempting to hide assets.

“This ruling shows that courts will look beyond surface documentation to the true facts of asset acquisition,” noted legal analyst Simeza Mwale. “If a property was bought as a family home during the marriage, no amount of post-separation paperwork games will change its status as matrimonial property.”

The judge put it even more bluntly: “The matrimonial home remains family property regardless of attempts to manipulate ownership records. This court will not allow such transparent schemes to succeed.”

As the ex-wife finally takes possession of her rightful share, the case serves as both a cautionary tale and an important precedent in Zambia’s family law jurisprudence.

Dickson Jere is an award-winning legal journalist with 15 years experience covering Zambia’s courts. Additional analysis by legal correspondent Brenda Mwansa.