Faith Nyarai Maphosa v Dorcas Mukucha N.O and Patience Manyara and Master of the High Court N.O

Efi Mukucha passed away on 22 July 1996, owning Stand 2997 in Glen View Township, Harare. She was single and survived by her daughter Agnes Mukucha, who died on 29 July 2002 but was survived by the applicant (Faith Nyarai Maphosa). The first respondent was appointed executor on 22 January 2015. The executor's inventory valued the property at $25,000 and initially awarded it to the applicant in a summary liquidation and distribution account dated 2 September 2015, which was confirmed by the Master. On 9 March 2016, the second respondent (Patience Manyara) lodged a claim for $20,000 against the estate, alleging she and Mavis Berejena developed the property. The first respondent accepted this claim on 9 May 2016. The second respondent then requested the property be sold to satisfy her claim. The applicant only filed this review application in February 2018, challenging the acceptance of the claim.

• Whether the application for review was filed within the prescribed time period of eight weeks under Rule 259 of the High Court Rules
• Whether the court should condone non-compliance with the time limit for filing a review application
• Whether the applicant properly sought condonation for late filing
• What decision was properly subject to review - the executor's decision of 9 May 2016 or the Master's letter of 20 March 2018

The matter was struck off the roll. The applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Where an application for review under Rule 259 of the High Court Rules is brought outside the prescribed eight-week period, a substantive and proper application for condonation must be filed. The making of the application for condonation is what triggers the court's discretion to extend time. A cursory reference to condonation in an answering affidavit is insufficient. Without a proper application for condonation, the matter is not properly before the court and cannot be decided on the merits. The decision subject to review in estate administration is the executor's decision to accept or reject a claim (exercised under sections 43-47 of the Administration of Estates Act), not subsequent correspondence from the Master's office.

The court made extensive obiter observations criticizing the handling of the estate administration. CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J described the matter as "voodoo law brewed in an African pot" and noted a "shocking lack of knowledge and appreciation of the law of succession and inheritance." The court criticized the Master's office for writing contradictory letters that added to confusion, and for not being firm in making decisions. The court implored the Master's office and legal practitioners to familiarize themselves with succession and inheritance law, noting that "endless correspondences and 'special meetings' do not often resolve issues especially when there are deep-rooted disputes." The court observed that legal practitioners on both sides "fell into the trap of addressing issues that were non-issues" and emphasized that anyone aggrieved by decisions in estate administration can challenge them through proper legal channels rather than endless correspondence.

This case is significant for emphasizing strict compliance with procedural requirements in review applications, particularly the need for a proper application for condonation when proceedings are brought out of time. It reinforces that a court cannot exercise discretion to condone late filing absent a substantive application that addresses the relevant factors. The judgment also serves as a strong reminder to legal practitioners and the Master's office to have proper knowledge and appreciation of succession and inheritance law. The case demonstrates that the law of succession has built-in safeguards allowing challenges at various stages, but these must be exercised within prescribed time limits and proper procedures.