Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court has brought a long‑running legal saga involving the former bishop of Manicaland, the Rt. Rev. Julius Tawona Makoni to an end, dismissing his final bid to block enforcement in Zimbabwe of a United Kingdom divorce and property order in favour of his ex‑wife, Pauline Mutsa Makoni.
In a unanimous judgment handed down on 20 January 2026, the Constitutional Court refused Bishop Makoni direct access, holding that he had failed to show any violation of his constitutional rights or any prospects of success that would justify reopening issues already determined by the Supreme Court. The apex court’s ruling leaves intact the 2013 English divorce and financial order which awarded Mrs Makoni, among other assets, the former matrimonial home in Chisipite, Harare, while confirming that the English judgment is recognisable and enforceable under Zimbabwean law.
The judgment marks the culmination of more than a decade of transnational litigation arising from the breakdown of a marriage that began in Zimbabwe in 1983 and unfolded between Harare and London, and in which questions of domicile, disclosure and public policy became entangled with the public ministry and reputation of a senior Anglican cleric.
Julius Tawona Makoni first came to prominence in Zimbabwe as a founder and chief executive of National Merchant Bank (NMB), building a substantial business and investment portfolio before entering Anglican ministry and eventually serving as Bishop of Manicaland. He and Pauline were married in Zimbabwe in 1983, and during their marriage acquired significant assets in both Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom, including homes in London and Harare, a stand in Shawasha Hills, and substantial shareholdings and offshore accounts.
The future bishop moved to the UK to pursue his banking career, working at Morgan, Grenfell & Co., the World Bank Group, and finally to HSBC, where he held the position of Senior Adviser (emerging markets and principal investments). He also began studying for the ordained ministry at Cambridge and was ordained deacon in 2008, and as a priest in 2009, serving in the Church of England. Two weeks after his ordination to the priesthood he was invited to become the Bishop of Manicaland – the shortest time recorded in Anglican history between ordination to the priesthood and then to the episcopacy. He served as BIshop of Manicaland in Zimbabwe between 2009 and 2015 and resigned his see to return to banking in the UK with the International Monetary Fund.
By 2010, the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and Mrs Makoni petitioned for divorce in the High Court of Justice (Family Division) in England, asserting that her husband was domiciled there and that English courts therefore had jurisdiction over both the dissolution of the marriage and the distribution of matrimonial property.
In December 2014, the English court granted a decree of divorce and issued a detailed financial order dividing the couple’s property. The order awarded Pauline the London matrimonial home, the Harare house in Chisipite, a stand in Shawasha Hills, and specified household goods, while leaving Makoni with what the court described as “extensive assets”, including multiple properties, large shareholdings in NMBZ, and significant offshore bank accounts.
A central feature of the English proceedings was the court’s finding that Makoni had failed to make full and frank disclosure of his financial interests. Relying on established English authority such as NG v SG on the consequences of non‑disclosure in matrimonial finance, the judge emphasised that a party who withholds information must not achieve a better outcome than if the truth had been told, and calibrated the award on the premise that his real wealth was likely greater than what appeared on paper.
Rather than challenge the English order through the UK appellate process, Makoni turned to the courts in Harare. In 2015 he sought a declaratory order from the Zimbabwean High Court that the English judgment was contrary to public policy and unenforceable in Zimbabwe, focusing particularly on the Chisipite property and arguing that its transfer would leave him “homeless” and offend local notions of fairness.
In March 2023, the High Court accepted that argument, holding that the English court had lacked jurisdiction and that enforcement of its order, insofar as it affected the Harare house, would be inconsistent with Zimbabwean public policy. That ruling was, however, short‑lived: on appeal, the Supreme Court set it aside, issuing a strong judgment in mid‑2025 recognising the English divorce decree and financial order for purposes of enforcement in Zimbabwe.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning addressed two main issues. First, it held that Makoni was domiciled in the United Kingdom when the 2010 divorce proceedings were instituted, pointing to his prolonged residence and work abroad and applying both Zimbabwean and English rules of domicile, which the court described as “strikingly similar”.
Second, it rejected the homelessness claim, highlighting evidence that Makoni retained or controlled assets worth well over a million United States dollars, including NMBZ shares valued at more than US$1.3 million and offshore accounts holding hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The Zimbabwe Supreme Court echoed the English court’s criticism of his non‑disclosure, remarking that “material non‑disclosure constitutes a lie” and insisting that Zimbabwean courts “do not reward the perpetrator of a wrong” in matrimonial litigation.
Having lost in the Supreme Court, Makoni sought to sidestep the ordinary appeal structure by applying directly to the Constitutional Court for relief. Represented by constitutional lawyers Welshman Ncube and Lovemore Madhuku, he alleged that the Supreme Court’s handling of the case had infringed his rights to a fair hearing, equal protection of the law and a home under sections 69(2), 56(1) and 74 of the Zimbabwean Constitution.
The Constitutional Court rejected each ground: On fair hearing, it acknowledged that there had been a delay in the delivery of the Supreme Court’s full reasons but held that delay alone, in the absence of concrete prejudice, does not amount to a constitutional violation. The court noted that the reasons were eventually furnished and were sufficiently detailed to allow Makoni to frame his constitutional challenge.
On the equal protection claim, the court held that Makoni had failed to show that he was treated differently from anyone else in a comparable position or that any suspect classification or arbitrary discrimination was at play.
On his third claim, the right to a home, the court characterised his homelessness argument as misplaced, explaining that section 74 protects against eviction without a court order, not against the outcome of judicially‑supervised matrimonial property division after a contested hearing.
Echoing the factual findings of the lower court, the Constitutional Court underlined that Makoni continued to hold assets far in excess of those transferred to his former wife and described it as “almost risible” to suggest that the enforcement of the English order had rendered him destitute or homeless. It further endorsed the Supreme Court’s conclusion that, at the relevant time, he had lost his Zimbabwean domicile and was domiciled in the United Kingdom, giving the English court “requisite jurisdictional competence” to adjudicate the divorce.
Finding that the application amounted to an attempt to relitigate matters already settled, the court dismissed it and, while noting the attritional character of the proceedings, made no order as to costs in light of the general rule that constitutional litigants are not ordinarily mulcted for unsuccessful claims.
Although the litigation formally concerns private matrimonial and property rights, it has unfolded under the gaze of Zimbabwe’s Anglican community because of Makoni’s previous role as Bishop of Manicaland and his prominence in the church’s leadership. Earlier coverage from Anglican‑oriented outlets has framed the saga within a pattern of governance and accountability issues that have marked Zimbabwean Anglican life over the last two decades, particularly in disputes where episcopal authority, stewardship of church‑linked wealth and personal integrity overlap.
In that context, the repeated judicial findings regarding non‑disclosure, jurisdiction‑shopping and the use of public‑policy arguments to shield personal assets from lawful orders sit uneasily with Anglican expectations for episcopal conduct and transparency. The Constitutional Court’s emphatic closure of the case—together with the Supreme Court’s insistence that courts should not reward those who obscure their true financial position—will likely be read by many Anglicans in Zimbabwe as a reminder that Christian leaders remain subject to the same standards of candour and obedience to lawful authority that the church calls its laity to uphold.
At the same time, the outcome underscores a more mundane but important point for clergy who live transnational lives: questions of domicile, jurisdiction and financial disclosure in family law are not merely technicalities but deeply consequential issues that can shape both personal futures and public witness.