Jeophrey Gohwa v Tserai Ntuli (in her capacity as executrix dative of estate late Phenias Gohwa) and Others

The applicant and the 1st to 4th respondents are all children of the late Phenias Gohwa. During his lifetime, the late Mr Gohwa allegedly donated a house to the applicant. On 20 February 2003, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents deposed affidavits confirming this donation. However, on or around 16 March 2024, approximately 21 years later, these same respondents deposed one-sentence affidavits purporting to revoke their 2003 affidavits, stating: "I revoke the affidavit which I signed on 20th February 2003 which I also signed." The estate was then registered and administered without the applicant being advised. Upon discovering the revocation affidavits while searching the estate documents, the applicant approached the court seeking to set aside the withdrawal affidavits on the basis that they were improperly made, lacked proper detail and reasoning, and were done secretly without notice to him as an affected party.

• Whether the court had jurisdiction under section 14 of the High Court Act to determine the matter
• Whether the revocation affidavits deposed in 2024 were valid
• Whether the proper procedure for revoking affidavits was followed
• Whether affected parties must be notified when affidavits affecting their rights are revoked
• Whether section 8(6) of the Wills Act applied to the dispute

1. The application succeeds. 2. The revocation of affidavits initially deposed in 2003 by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents through a set of new affidavits deposed in June 2024 is declared unlawful and set aside. 3. The 1st Respondent is ordered to accept the initial affidavits deposed to by the 2nd to 4th Respondents in 2003 which form part of the Deceased Estate record. 4. The decision by the 5th Respondent (Master of the High Court) to accept the revocation of the initial affidavits and refusal to have the new affidavits expunged from the record is set aside. 5. 1st to 4th Respondents to pay costs on an attorney and client scale jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved.

When revoking an affidavit, the party revoking must depose to a new affidavit stating the reasons for withdrawing or revoking the previous affidavit. A bare, one-sentence revocation without reasons or detail is insufficient. A party who is affected by the revocation of an affidavit has a right to be made aware of such revocation and its intended use. It is improper and unlawful to revoke affidavits secretly, behind the back of affected parties. Section 8(6) of the Wills Act applies only to the making of wills and does not have general application to estate administration disputes. The High Court has jurisdiction under section 14 of the High Court Act to inquire into and determine existing, future or contingent rights at the instance of any interested person.

The court noted that while there were difficulties reading the names of the commissioners of oaths on the stamps embedded in the 2024 affidavits, the names could eventually be read and a finding was made as to the technical validity of the affidavits in this respect. However, the court stated that this finding had no effect on the matter, as the affidavits remained improper due to being insufficiently detailed and secretly revoked. The court observed that if the donation made by the late Gohwa in 2003 (22 years prior) was to be challenged, it should have been proceeded with properly rather than through the secretive manner adopted by the respondents. The court noted that what should have been done at the edict meeting was to give effect to the position established in 2003, rather than attempting to revoke it through defective affidavits.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean law (the judgment is from the High Court of Zimbabwe, not South Africa) as it establishes important procedural principles regarding the revocation of affidavits in estate administration matters. It clarifies that while affidavits can be revoked, the revocation must be properly detailed with reasons stated, and parties who will be affected by the revocation must be given notice. The case reinforces procedural fairness and transparency requirements in estate administration. It also clarifies the jurisdictional scope of section 14 of the High Court Act in determining existing, future or contingent rights, and limits the application of section 8(6) of the Wills Act to will-making matters only.