Cismo Chimukwita v Noreen Chikaka and The Master of the High Court

The applicant claimed $15,770 against the estate of the late Dinemu Tambala (who died in 1991), based on bills paid and improvements (renovations and fencing) made to property stand no. 3378, Mbare, Harare. The applicant and deceased were described as 'cousin brothers'. In 2016, the applicant caused registration of the estate with the Master. At an edict meeting, the first respondent was appointed executor by the Master. The first respondent appointed Panavest Properties (Private) Limited to conduct a valuation of the improvements. In the First and Final Liquidation and Distribution Account, the first respondent awarded the applicant only $500, to which the applicant objected. The applicant then brought this application seeking appointment of an independent valuer by the Sheriff to re-value the improvements and his salvage lien.

• Whether the Sheriff has power to appoint a valuer in relation to deceased estate assets
• Whether the application was the proper remedy for challenging the executor's valuation as approved by the Master
• Whether section 40 of the Administration of Estates Act empowers the Sheriff or the Master to appoint valuers
• Whether the application was timeously brought in terms of section 52(9) of the Administration of Estates Act and Order 33 of the High Court Rules
• What is the proper procedure for challenging the Master's decision regarding estate valuations

The application was dismissed with costs.

Under section 40 of the Administration of Estates Act, only the Master of the High Court has the power to appoint valuers to assess estate assets when the executor's valuation is not approved; the Sheriff has no such jurisdiction. A decision by the Master approving an executor's valuation must be challenged by way of review under section 52(9) of the Administration of Estates Act within thirty days of the Master's direction (or within eight weeks under Order 33 of the High Court Rules). An applicant seeking to challenge such a decision outside the prescribed time limits must first apply for condonation before proceeding with the substantive challenge.

The court noted that the sequence of correspondence between the parties was "somewhat blurred" but nonetheless was able to discern that the Master had made a direction by implication when he advised the applicant to approach the court if aggrieved, thereby indicating satisfaction with the executor's valuation. The court also observed that the application was "ill-conceived" and brought "under the guise" of seeking an independent valuation, when in reality it was an improper attempt to circumvent the proper review procedure and time limits prescribed by law.

This case clarifies the proper procedure for challenging valuations in deceased estates in Zimbabwean law. It confirms that the Master of the High Court, not the Sheriff, has exclusive jurisdiction under section 40 of the Administration of Estates Act to appoint valuers for estate assets. It reinforces the principle that decisions by the Master regarding estate administration must be challenged by way of review under section 52(9) of the Act, within the prescribed time limits. The case serves as a warning against attempting to circumvent proper legal procedures and emphasizes the importance of using the correct remedy and complying with time limits in estate administration disputes.