Barbara Cook and Sophie Wildling v Alister Abrahams and Master of the High Court N.O and Registrar of Deeds

The applicants were biological sisters of the late Prudence Clementine Edwards whose estate was registered with the Master of the High Court under DR No 1165/15. The first respondent produced a will dated 22 November 2011 which was accepted by the Master, and he was appointed as executor testamentary. The applicants challenged the authenticity of the will, alleging their sister died without a will although it was her wish to have one. The applicants became aware of the executor's appointment on 22 June 2015 and objected to the will. At a meeting on 27 July 2015, parties agreed to give time until 11 September 2015 for substantiation of allegations regarding the will's authenticity. Movable property from the estate was sold on 17 July 2015 to the applicants' knowledge. On 11 September 2015, the applicants were advised of the impending sale of immovable property. On 14 October 2015, after property had been sold, the applicants approached the court on an urgent basis seeking to stop disposal of estate assets and to have the original will made available for expert examination.

• Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the application as siblings of the deceased
• Whether non-joinder of third parties who purchased estate assets was fatal to the application
• Whether the matter was urgent and properly brought through the urgent chamber application procedure
• Whether the applicants' delay in bringing the application defeated urgency

The application was dismissed with costs.

Close relatives of a deceased person have locus standi to challenge the administration of an estate based on their legal interest in proper administration, even where they are not beneficiaries. Urgency in the context of chamber applications requires that: (1) the applicant treated the matter as urgent and acted promptly when the need arose; (2) delay must be reasonably explained; (3) urgency arising from deliberate or careless abstention from action until after a deadline has passed is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules; and (4) the nature of the relief sought and the practical interest of the applicant are relevant considerations. An application seeking to indefinitely halt estate administration pending unspecified investigations, where no formal application challenging the will's validity has been filed, does not constitute the type of urgent relief that warrants preferential treatment through the urgent application procedure.

The court observed that the original will ought to be with the Master of the High Court after being handed in upon registration and acceptance, and that the Master's office is a public office with well laid out procedures to access documents. The court also noted that the applicants' lack of practical interest in the matter (having stated they had no interest in the estate but wished to see their sister's speculative wish accomplished) probably explained their dilatory attitude and inaction in pursuing the matter.

This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean law regarding urgent applications and standing in estate matters. It confirms that close relatives have locus standi to challenge estate administration even without being beneficiaries, based on their legal interest in proper administration. However, it strongly reinforces the principle that urgency is not established where applicants delay taking action, fail to treat the matter as urgent themselves, and only approach the court after deadlines have passed and after the events they seek to prevent have already occurred. The case serves as a warning that courts will not grant preferential treatment through the urgent application procedure to parties who sit on their rights and create their own urgency through inaction. It also clarifies that the nature of the relief sought and the practical interest of the applicant are relevant considerations in determining whether to grant urgent relief.