Faith Rudo Sekeramayi v Esther Dzwowa and Dorcas Makaza (in her capacity as Executor of the Estate Lovemore Sekeramayi Chipunza) and Master of the High Court

The applicant claimed to have customarily married the late Lovemore Sekeramayi Chipunza in 1971, with the marriage registered under the African Marriages Act in 1982. In 1983, they acquired property at 31 Hindhead Avenue, Chisipite, Harare through a mortgage bond. From 1984, the applicant stayed at her employer's accommodation during weekdays, allegedly visiting the matrimonial home on weekends. The deceased married Anita Stella Sekeramayi civilly in 1990 and divorced her in 2001, with the Chisipite property awarded to him as sole property. In 2008, the deceased contracted a customary marriage with the first respondent, who lived with him at the Chisipite property until his death in 2014. The applicant had been living at 2304 Old Tafara (council rented house) and was listed in council records as a divorcee. Upon the deceased's death, the executor awarded the Chisipite property to the first respondent. The Master approved this decision. The applicant sought review of the Master's decision, claiming entitlement to the property based on her contribution to its acquisition.

• Whether the Master's decision to approve the executor's award of the immovable property to the first respondent was reviewable on grounds of irrationality or unreasonableness
• Which surviving spouse was entitled to the matrimonial property under section 68F(2)(c)(i) of the Administration of Estates Act
• The effect of the deceased's subsequent civil marriage to Anita on the applicant's customary marriage
• Whether the applicant's claim to the property was valid given her non-occupation of the property for over 20 years prior to the deceased's death

The application for review was dismissed by consent, with each party bearing its own costs.

Where a deceased person is survived by multiple wives who lived in separate houses, section 68F(2)(c)(i) of the Administration of Estates Act requires that each wife receive the house she was actually living in at the time of the deceased's death. Occupation at the time of death, rather than historical contribution to property acquisition or the chronological order of marriages, is the determinative factor in awarding matrimonial property. A spouse who has not lived at a property for an extended period (in this case over 20 years) and who failed to assert property rights when the deceased distributed the property in divorce proceedings with another spouse, cannot successfully claim entitlement to that property in estate administration proceedings.

The court observed that a civil marriage does not override a customary law marriage contracted before it, and such a civil marriage would be a nullity if the customary marriage was still subsisting. The court also commented that it was illogical for the applicant to assert rights over property she never lived in for more than 20 years while her husband was alive, and that she should have asserted herself when he was still alive. The court noted that the applicant appeared to be taking advantage of the deceased's death and the absence of proof of a decree of divorce, though this was beside the point as the Master had declared her a surviving spouse. The court expressed skepticism about the applicant's truthfulness regarding the status of her marriage, noting she was unaware of the deceased's 2008 marriage to the first respondent despite claiming to visit on weekends.

This case clarifies the application of section 68F(2)(c)(i) of the Administration of Estates Act in Zimbabwe regarding the distribution of matrimonial property where a deceased is survived by multiple wives. It establishes that the critical factor is actual occupation of the property at the time of death, not historical contribution to acquisition or nominal marital status. The case also demonstrates the importance of spouses asserting their property rights during the deceased's lifetime, particularly when the deceased enters into subsequent marriages and distributes property without their knowledge or participation.