Lazarus Chigora v Luxmore Chigora and Others

Rosemary Chigora died on 19 August 2016, survived by her husband Lazarus Chigora (the plaintiff) and five children (the defendants). Prior to her death, the deceased and plaintiff had deep-seated matrimonial conflicts and had voluntarily separated four or five years before her death. The deceased lived at the matrimonial home in Harare while the plaintiff moved to the rural home in Goromonzi. After her death, the estate was registered at the Master's office without the plaintiff's participation. A Will emerged which the plaintiff challenged as invalid. The Will was registered as LW542/12 in the name of "Rose Chigora (nee Kahari)" and appointed Kudakwashe Chigora (5th defendant) as executor. The plaintiff sought nullification of the Will, removal of the appointed executor, and his own appointment as executor.

• Whether the last will and testament of Rosemary Chigora as accepted by the Master was invalid
• Whether the plaintiff should replace Kudakwashe Chigora as executor of the estate of the late Rosemary Chigora
• Whether Rose Chigora and Rosemary Chigora are the same person

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.

A will cannot be invalidated on the basis of minor name variations or the use of shortened versions of names where the identity of the testator can be established through corroborating documentary evidence including consistent identity numbers, signatures, dates of birth, and references to known family members and property. To successfully challenge the validity of a will, a party must demonstrate non-compliance with the formalities required by section 8 of the Wills Act, Chapter 6:06. Mere discrepancies in the use of full names versus shortened names or alternative family surnames, without more, do not render a will invalid where the testator's identity is established on a balance of probabilities.

The court observed that the plaintiff's true motivation for challenging the Will appeared to stem from what the testatrix bequeathed rather than genuine concerns about the Will's validity. The court noted that the issue of whether, in law, a testator can bequeath certain property was not a matter before the court and declined to address the plaintiff's arguments about his rights as a surviving spouse to inherit. The court took judicial notice that the use of shortened versions of names is very common among many people. The court also noted that non-disclosure of a will at a traditional gathering for distribution of property according to custom does not, without more, make the will invalid.

This case illustrates the principles governing challenges to the validity of wills in Zimbabwean law, particularly where challenges are based on name variations rather than substantive non-compliance with statutory formalities. It demonstrates that minor variations or shortened versions of names do not invalidate a will where the testator's identity can be established through corroborating evidence such as identity numbers, signatures, dates of birth, and references to family members and property. The case also reinforces the principle that the Master's acceptance of a will as valid carries weight and requires substantive evidence to overturn. Additionally, it highlights that a surviving spouse's subjective belief about inheritance rights does not form a basis for invalidating a will that complies with statutory formalities under the Wills Act.