Tanga ‘wekwa’ Sando files for divorce

Veteran township jazz musician, Tanga Enerst Sando, popularly known as Tanga wekwa-Sando is embroiled in a nasty divorce with his wife Irene Wairimu Sando, in which both parties have confirmed their 16-year- old marriage had irretrievably broken down.


The celebrated musician and his wife, a pharmacist, have their matter still pending at the pre-trial stage in the High Court.

The divorce proceedings were initiated by the musician, who claimed in the court papers that his wife deserted the couple’s matrimonial home in 2001 and proceeded to settle in the United Kingdom with the pair’s two children.

However, in her counter claim, Irene instead, accused Tanga of deserting the couple’s matrimonial home in 2000 opting to settle with another woman, whose details were not available in the court papers.

In his affidavit, Tanga said he married Irene on September 11, 1998 and the marriage was blessed with two children, but as years went by, the couple started experiencing problems.

“The parties’ marriage has irretrievably broken down to an extent that there are no prospects of restoration of a normal marriage relationship more particularly in that: the defendant (Irene) has deserted the matrimonial home since 2001, parties have lost love and affection for each other and that the parties have been living apart for the past 14 years,” he said.

The jazz guru said he would lead evidence that during the subsistence of the pair’s marriage, the parties acquired various items of movable property and as such it would be just and equitable that each party keeps the property in his or her custody.

“The plaintiff (Tanga) will also state that during the subsistence of their marriage, the parties acquired the following immovable properties — stand 2690 Highfield Township, 14569 Gunhill, 304 Glen Road Glen Lorne, Flat 33 Wansford Court, 10230 Highfield, Medicare Pharmacy,” he said.

“The plaintiff believes it is just and equitable if either the properties were evaluated and sold so that the parties share the net proceeds equally or alternatively the plaintiff is awarded the Wansford Court flat and stand 10230 Highfield Township, while the defendant is awarded the Glen Lorne property.”

In respect of the flat, Sando said: “When this property was offered for sale to occupying tenants by the Mining Pension Fund, we were by now separated and the plaintiff was staying at the flat while the defendant and children were staying at 3904 Glen Lorne, as he had moved out.

“The sale agreement was initially drafted in the plaintiff’s (Tanga) name. True to her nature, the defendant (Irene) once again pretended to seek reconciliation with plaintiff and plaintiff allowed her to process the papers for the purchase of the flat and said she was going to make sure that the flat was in both their names. True to her nature again, defendant signed an agreement of sale in her name using the money plaintiff had given her.”

In challenging the claim, Irene dismissed claims she deserted the matrimonial, saying it was the musician, instead, who had moved out. Irene also dismissed claims that Tanga bought the claimed properties, arguing she personally acquired them through her effort.

“It is denied that defendant (Irene) deserted the matrimonial home in 2001. Defendant avers that it was the plaintiff, who deserted the matrimonial home two years before the parties’ two children left for the United Kingdom around 2002, when the defendant went to further her education,” she said.

“House No. 304 Glen Road, Glen Lorne and the apartment namely, No. 33 Wansford, 66 Chinamano Road, were acquired solely by the defendant, with no contribution whatsoever from the plaintiff.”

Irene further, said, as a couple, they owned stand 2690 Highfield Township, which was given to them by Tanga’s father as a wedding gift and the property was registered in his name.

“During the course of the marriage, plaintiff (Tanga) acquired a commercial stand 10230 Highfield Township. The defendant (Irene) avers that plaintiff also acquired properties in South Africa, which have been under his sole control since 1998,” she said.

Under the same matter, Irene also filed a claim in reconvention urging the court to grant her properties she claimed she bought herself.

“It is just and equitable that the defendant (Irene) be awarded as her sole and exclusive property the immovable properties namely, house number 304 Glen Lorne and Flat Number 33 Wansford Court, which properties she solely acquired and are registered in her name,” she said.

“… It is just and equitable that the plaintiff be awarded as his sole and exclusive property the immovable properties known as stand number 2690 Highfield Township and Stand number 10230 Highfield Township and the immovable properties in South Africa.”

Sando, however, denied owning properties in South Africa. The divorce case is still pending.Newsday

Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *