Mark Taruhla and Others v Fakazi Sonny Taruhla and The Master of the High Court N.O

The applicants and the 1st respondent are siblings, children of the late Sonny Taruhla who died intestate on 5 September 1996. The 1st respondent is the eldest child, born of a different mother. It was understood by all parties that the deceased's estate had never been formally registered and administered. In October 2018, the family decided to formally register the estate with the Master of the High Court in Harare under reference DR 2965/18. At the edict meeting, the 1st respondent's representative produced a Certificate of Heirship reference WE4/158/96 allegedly issued by Kadoma Community Court, claiming the estate had already been administered to finality. The other beneficiaries were unaware of this. The Master of the High Court conducted investigations and the Additional Assistant Master at Kadoma responded that they could not locate the file, and that the reference number used at Kadoma started with "DRKM" not "WE4/158/96". Further searches by the Provincial Magistrate at Chinhoyi and National Archives also failed to locate the file. The 1st respondent had obtained a default judgment from Kudya J in HC 1270/19 confirming him as the sole heir based on the certificate.

• Whether the Certificate of Heirship reference WE4/158/96 issued in favour of the 1st respondent is valid and authentic
• Whether the court could determine the validity of the certificate despite an existing order from a parallel court in HC 1270/19
• Whether the estate should be administered de novo under DR 2965/18

1. The certificate of Heirship W4/158/96 is not authentic. 2. The certificate of Heirship referenced WE4/158/96 purportedly issued to the 1st Respondent in respect of the estate late Sonny Taruhla is declared invalid and set aside. 3. The 2nd Respondent (Master of the High Court) is directed to proceed with the Administration of the estate of late Sonny Taruhla registered under DR 2965/18. 4. The 1st Respondent shall bear costs of suit on a higher scale of Attorney/client.

Where a Certificate of Heirship cannot be verified through official records, where the reference number does not match the court's filing system, where multiple official searches fail to locate the underlying file, and where other beneficiaries had no knowledge of or participation in the alleged estate administration, the certificate will be declared invalid and inauthentic. A party seeking to rely on a certificate of heirship bears the onus of proving its validity and authenticity on a balance of probabilities. A default judgment confirming heirship does not preclude a court of competent jurisdiction from subsequently determining the authenticity of the underlying certificate, particularly where the default order itself contemplates the possibility of reopening administration by court order. In the interests of justice and to protect all beneficiaries, an estate should be administered de novo where the authenticity of a prior administration is in serious doubt.

The court observed that under the old section 68(2) of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6.01], which was applicable at the time of the deceased's death in 1996, "controversies or questions" among relatives were required to be determined by a magistrate. No such record was found. The court further observed that it would be inconceivable that a meeting of relatives under customary law would have distributed all of the deceased's several assets to the 1st respondent alone without regard to the other children of the deceased, regardless of the position of the heir under old customary law. The court noted that Zimbabwean law recognizes the role and responsibility of the meeting of relatives under customary law, and the certificate would have been issued without regard to a proper resolution of family disputes under customary law. The court also commented on the suspicious nature of documents suddenly surfacing in Supreme Court proceedings after multiple official searches yielded nothing, and the irregular affidavit filed by a former magistrate 23 years after the alleged events.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean succession law as it reinforces the importance of transparency and proper procedural compliance in the administration of estates, particularly where multiple beneficiaries exist. It demonstrates the court's willingness to scrutinize the authenticity of estate documents and certificates of heirship, especially where there is evidence suggesting fraud or irregularity. The case also clarifies that default judgments confirming heirship can be revisited when the underlying documents upon which they are based are demonstrated to be inauthentic. It emphasizes the protection of all beneficiaries' rights in estate administration and the Master's duty to ensure proper administration. The judgment highlights the evidentiary burden on parties claiming heirship based on documentary evidence to prove authenticity when challenged.