CAPS United football team boss Twine Phiri is failing to pay school fees for his daughter and is now owing Girls High School $1 200, the Harare Civil Court heard last week.
The businessman’s mother in-law, Catherine Mutukwa, made a maintenance claim of $250 per month for the businessman’s 16-year-old daughter on November 25 last year.
The claim was granted in Phiri’s absence.
Phiri is now applying for the rescission of the default judgement compelling him to pay $250 per month towards the upkeep of the child.
He asked the court to postpone the matter to give him time to file his response.
Magistrate Mr Trevor Nyatsanza postponed the matter to Thursday this week.
Responding to Phiri’s founding affidavit, Mutukwa claimed the businessman was approaching the court with dirty hands.
“An order was granted by this honourable court on the 26th of November 2014 for the applicant to pay $250 as maintenance for the minor child with effect from 31 December 2014,” reads part of Mutukwa’s application.
“The applicant has not been paying school fees and currently he owes the school $1 200 being $300 for the first term of 2015 and $900 in arrears.”
Mutukwa said Phiri should first deal with his default judgement case before seeking redress from the same court he has defied.
She claimed that Phiri was in the habit of assaulting their child.
“Sometime in June 2014, I received a call from the child’s teacher who asked me to come and take the child and she further advised that the child had been assaulted by her father,” she said.
“Upon arrival at the school, I noticed that the child was ill. I enquired on the reasons why the applicant had assaulted the child.”
In his application, Phiri claimed the $250 was too much for him to contribute per month.
“The sum of $250 per month is highly excessive given that I am a married man with several other children to look after,” he said.
“The sum is out of proportion. I further state that I have since been slapped with other maintenance orders for other children.”
Phiri implored the court to exercise its discretion and grant the order sought so that a proper inquiry may be conducted.
He claimed that at law Mutukwa did not have the right to claim maintenance for his child, whom he said was under his custody.
“The respondent is not the custodian of the child in question,” he said.
“The child is my daughter whom I sired with the respondent’s now deceased daughter.”