Juliet Kadungure and Others v Patricia Darangwa (NO) and Others

The late Genius Kadungure (popularly known as Ginimbi) died on 8 November 2020. Patricia Darangwa, the first respondent, claimed to have met with the deceased in October 2020 to discuss will writing and estate planning. She drafted a will based on instructions allegedly given by the deceased on 23 October 2020. A follow-up meeting was scheduled for 10 November 2020 to finalize and sign the will, but the deceased died on 8 November 2020 before this meeting could occur. The will was never signed or dated by the deceased. On 25 November 2020, at a meeting with the Master of the High Court, the deceased's father and sisters (the first to third applicants) initially accepted the unsigned document as embodying the deceased's intentions. The Master accepted the will in terms of section 8(5) of the Wills Act and appointed Darangwa as testamentary executrix on 2 December 2020. Subsequently, concerns arose about Darangwa's conduct, including false claims of being a lawyer, refusal to avail the will when requested, and attempts to dispose of estate assets (particularly a Lamborghini vehicle) without following due process. The applicants then sought a review of the Master's decision to accept the unsigned will.

• Whether the Master had jurisdiction to accept as a valid will a document which was neither drafted nor signed by the deceased himself in terms of section 8(5) of the Wills Act [Chapter 6:06]
• Whether the Master's decision to accept the unsigned will was illegal and contrary to section 8(5) of the Wills Act
• Whether the appointment of the first respondent as executrix was valid where she personally drafted the will and derived a benefit from it, contrary to section 6(1)(c) and 6(6) of the Wills Act
• Whether the review application was brought timeously
• Whether there were material disputes of fact requiring oral evidence
• Whether non-joinder of beneficiaries was fatal to the application

1. The application was granted and the provisional order confirmed. 2. The document registered as the will of Genius Kadungure under DR No. 1771/20 on 25 November 2020 was declared null and void. 3. The deceased was declared to have died intestate. 4. The Master's decision to accept the document as a valid will in terms of section 8(5) of the Wills Act was set aside. 5. The appointment of the first respondent as testamentary executrix on 2 December 2020 and all acts done by her under such appointment were declared null and void. 6. The letters of administration issued to the first respondent on 2 December 2020 were revoked. 7. The Master was ordered to convene another meeting to appoint an executor, presided over by a different official. 8. Only the applicants' costs were to be borne by the estate. 9. The first and third respondents were ordered to pay their own costs.

Section 8(5) of the Wills Act [Chapter 6:06] requires that for the Master to accept a will that does not comply with formal execution requirements, the document must have been drafted by the deceased personally (whether handwritten or typed), not by a third party. The provision is to be narrowly construed. Where a will was drafted by a third party (such as a lawyer or estate planner) and was never signed or dated by the deceased, the Master has no jurisdiction to accept it as a valid will under section 8(5). Such a decision by the Master is illegal and constitutes a nullity. The Master's role in determining whether to accept a non-compliant will under section 8(5) is adjudicative, not merely administrative, and is therefore subject to review by the High Court. A person who drafts a will cannot validly benefit from it or be appointed as executor under it, in terms of section 6(1)(c) and 6(6) of the Wills Act.

The court made several observations beyond the core legal principle: (1) The formalities of will execution serve important cautionary, evidentiary and protective functions, reminding testators of the seriousness of the act and providing courts with a coherent framework for recognizing testamentary intent. (2) Where the validity of a will is challenged, beneficiaries claiming under that will cannot insist on joinder as their interests only crystallize once the will's validity is established. (3) The fact that family members initially accepted a defective will does not prevent them from later challenging it when new facts emerge - this is 'not a touch-is-a-move game.' (4) There is a distinction between documents embodying final testamentary intentions and preliminary drafts prepared for future meetings. (5) Dying intestate is 'not a bad thing' as it allows the family to inherit according to law. (6) The court also commented on the unprofessional conduct of the first respondent in putting 'the whole defective train in motion' and the third respondent's haste in attempting to claim a Lamborghini before proper processes were followed, analogizing to the African proverb about not testing the depth of a river with both feet.

This case provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation of section 8(5) of the Wills Act [Chapter 6:06] in Zimbabwe, establishing that the provision must be narrowly construed. It clarifies that the Master may only accept non-compliant wills where the deceased personally drafted the document (whether handwritten or typed), not where it was drafted by a third party such as a lawyer. The judgment emphasizes the importance of testamentary formalities and the limited circumstances in which courts will depart from strict compliance. It also reinforces the prohibition in section 6 of the Wills Act against persons who draft wills benefiting from them. The case demonstrates the reviewability of the Master's decisions in accepting wills and appointing executors, and confirms that such reviews need not join all potential beneficiaries where the core issue is the validity of the will itself. The judgment serves as a warning against hasty acceptance of defective testamentary documents and underscores the adjudicative (not merely administrative) nature of the Master's role in determining whether to accept non-compliant wills.