The first to third respondents were beneficiaries of the estate of the late Kudzai Takaendesa who died on 15 July 2015. The estate comprised three farms and a butchery in Kwekwe. The second appellant was appointed executor. The estate had liabilities of USD$16,287.13, but beneficiaries only paid USD$2,625, leaving USD$14,047 outstanding. The executor requested the Master's consent to sell the three farms by private treaty to settle liabilities. The Master issued consents on 25 January 2018 (two farms) and 17 October 2019 (third farm), on condition the executor would inform beneficiaries. The beneficiaries objected on 12 March 2018 and 20 July 2018, suggesting the butchery be sold instead, but the Master refused to revoke consent. All three farms were sold to the purchaser for USD$700,000. The beneficiaries applied to the High Court to set aside the Master's decision under the Administrative Justice Act.
The appeal was allowed in part with no order as to costs. Paragraph 6 of the High Court order was set aside and replaced with: "Each party shall bear its own costs." The High Court's substantive orders setting aside the consents to sell, the agreements of sale, and the transfers were upheld.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) The 'due inquiry' required by section 120 of the Administration of Estates Act before the Master consents to sale by private treaty is not merely a superficial inquiry into mode of sale, but requires the Master to formulate an independent opinion after considering all circumstances, including whether the sale is advantageous to and in the best interests of beneficiaries. (2) The Master, as an administrative authority, must comply with section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act and act lawfully, reasonably and fairly when exercising powers under section 120. (3) The Master must afford beneficiaries an opportunity to be heard before granting consent to sell estate property, particularly where circumstances warrant it (such as disproportion between debt and value of property to be sold, objections raised, or availability of alternative assets). (4) The Master's function under section 120 cannot be delegated to the executor; the Master must independently assess the appropriateness of the sale. (5) Estate property bequeathed to beneficiaries is their property, and executors must act with this understanding when administering estates.
The Court made several observations: (1) The Master does not conduct judicial inquiries but practical, financial inquiries when exercising powers under section 120. (2) It is not in every case that beneficiaries must be heard, but the particular circumstances determine whether fairness requires it. (3) Administrative bodies like the Master should not ordinarily be mulcted with costs unless mala fides is proved. (4) Courts may not award costs de bonis propriis unless sought and the affected person has been given opportunity to be heard. (5) The executor's view that he could decide what was in the beneficiaries' best interests regarding their inheritance (selling farms due to lack of activity) exceeded his mandate, which was simply to ensure beneficiaries received their inheritance. (6) The presence of a ready buyer and the sale of multiple valuable properties to settle a small debt should alert the Master to potential irregularities requiring investigation.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean (and relevant to South African) estate and administrative law as it clarifies the scope of the Master's duty to conduct 'due inquiry' under section 120 of the Administration of Estates Act before consenting to sale of estate property by private treaty. The judgment establishes that: (1) 'due inquiry' requires the Master to formulate an independent opinion and not merely rubber-stamp the executor's decision; (2) the inquiry must consider whether the sale is in the best interests of beneficiaries, not just the mode of sale; (3) beneficiaries have a constitutional and statutory right to be heard before decisions affecting their inheritance are made; (4) the Master's role is to protect beneficiaries against excesses of executors; (5) estate property belongs to beneficiaries and executors must act with this in mind. The case also reinforces principles of administrative justice requiring administrative authorities to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly, consistent with constitutional guarantees.