data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/091f2/091f27b9f75fc5488d4d9421689cd73beb20ea44" alt=""
Danisa Masuku
A shocking case has surfaced involving a medical professional accused of neglecting his responsibilities — not by failing to save a life, but by refusing to support one he allegedly helped create.
A Bulawayo-based doctor is at the centre of controversy after reportedly impregnating a student on attachment and subsequently refusing to pay child maintenance, demanding a DNA test instead.
Munashe Murava, a dentist in Bulawayo, has been taken to court by Abigail Sibanda, a student pursuing tertiary education in Zambia and the mother of his child.
Appearing distressed in court, Sibanda recounted her experience: “I met Munashe Murava at the surgery where he worked as a doctor. I was doing my attachment there under his supervision. After a few weeks, we developed a relationship and engaged in sexual activity on several occasions, which resulted in my pregnancy in 2021.”
She added, “I applied for a maintenance order in December 2022, which was granted. He made payments from December 2022 until August 2023. Since then, he has missed several months’ payments, and he currently owes US$2,200.”
Regarding the missed payments, Sibanda explained, “I contacted Murava to understand why he had stopped paying maintenance. He expressed doubts about paternity and requested a DNA test.
“We have since taken the test and are awaiting the results.”
Sibanda also sought an increase in maintenance payments from US$200 to US$830.
In response, Murava stated, “I consistently paid maintenance until we had a serious disagreement during which she told me I was not the child’s father. That is why I stopped making payments.”
He further argued, “I cannot afford to pay US$830. I have four other children to support, and my monthly income is US$700. I can only afford to pay US$100.”
Murava also denied owning a surgery. Presiding magistrate Challenge Mahembe ruled in favour of Sibanda, ordering Murava to pay US$350 per month until the child reaches the age of 18.
In delivering the judgment, the magistrate emphasised that maintenance should not be punitive and that both parents have an obligation to contribute to the child’s welfare.