The late Jairos Chitsamatanga executed a will on 26 May 2000 bequeathing his entire estate, specifically Farm No. 96 Lancashire in Charter District, to his first-born son, the first defendant Fannuel Moyo Chitsamatanga. The testator died on 13 January 2005 at age 86. The tenth plaintiff was the testator's surviving spouse, married under the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11], and the other plaintiffs were children from this marriage. The first defendant registered the estate with the assistance of Messrs Gutu & Chikowero Attorneys without informing other family members. The tenth plaintiff only became aware of the will when she sent the ninth plaintiff to the Master of the High Court to enquire about estate registration procedures. The family then challenged the validity of the will, claiming the testator had always expressed his wish that all his children should live on the farm. The plaintiffs alleged that the testator went to Chivhu with the first defendant only to close bank accounts, not to execute a will.
The plaintiffs were granted absolution from the instance. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs.
A party challenging the validity of a will must establish their case on a balance of probabilities. There must be consistency between the grounds pleaded in the declaration and the evidence led at trial. Where the pleadings allege that a will was executed under certain vitiating factors (such as undue influence, lack of mental capacity, or visual impairment), but the evidence seeks to prove that no will was executed at all, the plaintiffs fail to establish their pleaded case. A court cannot grant relief based on unpleaded grounds or where there is fundamental inconsistency between pleadings and proof.
The court made observations about the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's execution, describing the first defendant's version of events as making 'very interesting reading' but noted these suspicions alone were insufficient to prove the plaintiffs' case. The court specifically noted questionable aspects including: the testator allegedly leading his frail father to lawyers' offices; the coincidental meeting between the first defendant and the attorney Chikowero in the reception; the registration of the estate without informing other family members; and the attorney representing the beneficiary in subsequent litigation. Most significantly, the court indicated that the question of whether a will can validly disinherit a surviving spouse married under the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11] is 'a very important point of law which has to be determined by our courts' but declined to decide it due to inadequate submissions by the parties. This suggests the court viewed this as a serious legal issue requiring proper judicial consideration in an appropriate case with full legal argument.
This case illustrates the critical importance of consistency between pleadings and evidence in civil litigation. It highlights the principle that a party's case must be properly pleaded and that evidence must support the pleaded case. The judgment also touches on (without deciding) an important unresolved question in Zimbabwean succession law regarding whether a testator can completely disinherit a surviving spouse married under the Marriages Act. The court's refusal to decide this issue due to inadequate submissions suggests this remains an open question requiring proper legal argument in future cases. The case also demonstrates judicial scrutiny of suspicious circumstances surrounding will execution, even where technical proof requirements are not met by challengers.