The Supreme Court sidestepped the core issue. As expected—or perhaps not—the Supreme Court delivered its verdict yesterday in the case deliberated since August 13, 2026. Atody miady aman-bato, the Malagasy equivalent of the French expression "earthenware pot against iron pot." An allegory used by La Fontaine in his fables to illustrate how the weaker is almost always broken by the stronger. This applies to the woman, often called "fanaka malemy" or the weaker sex, facing the man considered the stronger sex. In this case, it concerns an ex-wife whose legitimate share of a 172-hectare, 10-are, 93-centiare property acquired during their marriage was sold by her ex-husband to his new wife, despite the property being part of their common assets, which should have been divided equally by the competent court after the divorce was pronounced.
Inapplicable Law
Having requested annulment of the land sale deed covered by the division procedure, the woman won at every court level. This continued until the Supreme Court, in full session, overturned the Court of Appeal's decision, ruling that the annulment request was time-barred and therefore inadmissible. To support its decision, the Supreme Court—which is a court of law, not fact—based itself on the law concerning marriage and matrimonial regimes, despite it becoming inapplicable since they were no longer married. Moreover, the sale in question occurred two years after the dissolution of the community.
Conflict of Interest
One is entitled—in the legal sense—to question whether there was a conflict of interest, if not more, in this land matter—literally and figuratively. Indeed, the senior magistrate handling the case had acquired 17 ares and 7 centiares of the disputed land, according to the legal status certificate issued by the Land Registry of Miarinarivo, upon request by the ex-wife whose share of the disputed property was subdivided into 22 parcels. Including the one acquired by said magistrate, by private deed of sale dated August 8, 2014, and registered at the Miarinarivo tax office on August 25 of the same year. Barely a month after the annulment request filed by the former wife, who saw the Court of Appeal's decision in her favor overturned by the Supreme Court, there was a presumed, if not flagrant, conflict of interest that should have led the magistrate concerned—now retired—to recuse himself or be recused.
Expediency
Conversely, the Supreme Court granted a request dated April 29, 2026, from the ex-husband and his new wife to seize the Court of Cassation, in full session, regarding the decisions favoring the ex-wife. The latter filed her defense brief on July 20, 2026, while the reporting judge submitted his report to the registry the same day. Immediately followed the next day by the filing of the Attorney General's conclusions. The case was to be enrolled with exceptional speed on July 30 and deliberated on August 13, 2026.
Diversion
Believing the Supreme Court lacked sufficient time to examine the file, the ex-wife's lawyer requested postponement of yesterday's deliberation "to allow her to fully exercise her rights before the Court of Cassation." The latter rejected the request, deeming it time-barred, again relying on an inapplicable law. The Court of Cassation appears to rule ultra petita by pronouncing on a question not posed to it. A sort of diversion through which it reiterates the equal division of community property while expressly excluding the 172-hectare property located in Ampefy, despite this land being the crux of the dispute between the two ex-spouses. The division of other real estate, including Andohatapenaka, was already settled in 2013. The Court of Cassation obscures the real problem: annulling titles improperly registered in the name of the ex-husband's new wife, to the detriment of his ex-wife. In short, the Court of Cassation rendered a mixed verdict, presented as equitable but ultimately unjust toward the former wife. She has the impression that justice did not address what truly harms her. "Any amin'ny tsy mivonto no manaintaina."