The applicant was the surviving spouse of the late Washington Munyoro, who died on 11 October 2010. They had been married in 1994 under African Customary Law and had one child together. Following Washington's death, the applicant registered his estate at Kwekwe Magistrates' Court and was issued with Letters of Administration by the Assistant Master of the High Court on 11 October 2010. On 16 November 2016, the 1st respondent lodged a complaint with the Assistant Master claiming she was also a surviving spouse (she had been separated or divorced from the deceased some thirty years prior to his death). The 2nd respondent (magistrate) conducted a hearing and on 17 December 2010 declared the 1st respondent as co-executrix to the estate and issued fresh Letters of Administration to both the applicant and 1st respondent, without revoking the original letters issued to the applicant alone.
The order granted by the 2nd respondent at Kwekwe Magistrates' Court under case number DRKK 23/10 on 17 December 2010 was set aside. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Where letters of administration have been validly granted to an executor, fresh letters of administration appointing a co-executor cannot be issued without first revoking the original letters of administration in accordance with section 117(2) of the Administration of Estates Act. Two letters of administration in respect of one estate cannot legally co-exist. A magistrate sitting as Assistant Master derives power only from the Administration of Estates Act and cannot review or overturn the decision of another magistrate sitting in the same capacity. The first validly appointed executor's letters of administration remain valid until set aside by a competent court. Recognition as a surviving spouse confers rights as a beneficiary but does not automatically confer the right to be appointed as executor where no vacancy exists.
The court observed that even if the finding that the 1st respondent had not been divorced was reasonable, that would not justify her appointment as co-executor without first revoking the applicant's letters of administration. The court noted that on the facts, confirmation as a surviving spouse would have simply granted the 1st respondent certain rights as a beneficiary. The court also commented that there was no need for the appointment of a co-executor in the circumstances of the case. The court remarked that the contention that the 1st respondent was a surviving spouse after being separated or divorced for thirty years 'should not even have led to her appointment as co-executrix' and that 'the court a quo should not have entertained her claim the way it did as this has injurious effects on the legislative provisions relating to the appointment of executors.'
This case is significant in South African and Zimbabwean jurisprudence on estate administration as it clarifies the proper procedure for appointing co-executors under the Administration of Estates Act. It establishes that letters of administration previously granted must be formally revoked before new letters can be issued, and that two sets of letters of administration cannot co-exist for the same estate. The case also confirms that magistrates sitting as Assistant Masters derive their powers solely from the Administration of Estates Act and cannot review decisions of other magistrates sitting in the same capacity. It reinforces the principle that appointment as executor is first in time prevails and remains valid until set aside by a competent court, and that being recognized as a surviving spouse does not automatically confer the right to be appointed as executor where no vacancy exists.