HARARE - Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai says ex-lover Locadia Karimatsenga’s bid to stop his wedding is null since he has already obtained a marriage licence.

Yesterday, High Court judge Antonia Guvava reserved judgment on whether Karimatsenga’s case is urgent or not to today at 3pm.

A marriage licence is a document issued by a magistrate’s court authorising a couple to marry.

A public announcement about a forthcoming wedding should be made three weeks prior to the wedding and gives an opportunity for any objections to the marriage to be voiced.

Lawyers said both parties had argued their cases and they are now waiting for judgment.

Despite Locadia’s intentions to stop the nuptials, Tsvangirai, who is cited as the first respondent, produced a marriage licence obtained at the magistrates’ courts authorising him to marry his fiancée Elizabeth Macheka, who is the second respondent.

The licence showed the magistrates’ courts, on August 27, sanctioned the wedding that now hangs in the balance following claims by Karimatsenga that she was still married to the MDC leader.

“Whereas it appears there is no lawful impediment to this marriage of Tsvangirai Morgan and Guma Elizabeth Mazvita (Macheka), licence is hereby given to their being married without prior publication of banns or notice of intention to marry, in accordance with the provision of the Marriage Act,” reads the court certificate that gives the PM the nod to proceed with his wedding.

Tsvangirai says the High Court does not have jurisdiction on the matter as it has already been determined by the lower courts.

Tsvangirai argues that Karimatsenga should have approached the magistrates’ courts in accordance with the law before rushing to the High Court.

“I submit therefore that on this basis alone, this application should be dismissed,” reads Tsvangirai’s affidavit.

“Furthermore and in any event, it is my respectful submission that this matter is not urgent at all. This applicant had a lot of time and still has time to follow the provisions of the Act. My relationship with the 2nd respondent has been known to the applicant for a long time.

“My engagement ceremony with the 2nd respondent occurred on the 19th  of April 2012 and was widely publicised in the media.”

The MDC leader, who has already invited international dignitaries for the wedding, said: “The applicant’s application is premised on a claim that she is my wife according to customary law. She alleges I married her in November 2011. This with respect is most surprising. I must state clearly that as far as I am concerned, there is no valid customary law union or marriage between me and the applicant.”

In the affidavit Tsvangirai denies ever marrying the commodity broker.

“In or around August 2011 the applicant told me that she was pregnant,” Tsvangirai says in his court papers. “I told her in no uncertain terms that I was unable and unwilling to marry her.

“Sometime thereafter, she requested that I dignify her by taking responsibility of the pregnancy in the full glare of her immediate family. In accordance with the applicant’s desire to be dignified I sent some representatives in November 2011 to conduct the appropriate customary ritual."

“Since the time applicant claims to have married me, I have never lived with her as husband and wife. In fact at no time have I lived with the applicant as such,” said Tsvangirai.

However, Karimatsenga in her court papers maintains she is customarily married to Tsvangirai a marriage which claims “still subsists”.

She acknowledged Macheka is Tsvangirai’s second wife, “whom he has married in terms of African Customary Law but whom 1st respondent is proposing to marry in terms of the Marriages Act, Chapter 5:11,” which is the basis of her application.

But Tsvangirai says such claims are nonsensical.

“Furthermore and in any event, the relief which the applicant is seeking is not competent and in addition the applicant has no locus standi at law or right at law to apply for an interdict interdicting 2nd respondent and I from getting married,” the PM says.

“To start with, in her provisional order she is seeking an order that permanently interdicts 2nd respondent and I from getting married on the 15th September 2012 or any other date.

“What this practically means is that 2nd respondent and I should never get married even if the applicant decides to move on with her life and have nothing to do with me or even if she dies. This is simply nonsensical to say the least. Furthermore, no attempt has been made by the applicant to address the requirement of an interdict.”