Shennaz Wazir v Master of High Court and Others

The applicant, Shennaz Wazir, was the only daughter of the late Amina Hassam Kassam who died on 6 November 2020. On 12 February 2025, the second respondent, Osman Dudhia, was appointed as Executor Testamentary to the deceased's estate based on the deceased's will. The applicant's father, who was named jointly with the second respondent in the will as executor, had passed away on 24 July 1998. The applicant objected to the second respondent's appointment on several grounds: (1) the will envisaged joint executorship by her father and the second respondent; (2) there was no unanimous consent from all beneficiaries; (3) the second respondent is permanently resident in the United Kingdom; (4) the second respondent prepared a skewed inventory ignoring agreed family positions; and (5) information was allegedly withheld from the Master and the applicant was excluded from the executor appointment proceedings. On 18 March 2025, the applicant's legal practitioners wrote to the Master raising these concerns and requesting removal of the second respondent under section 116 of the Administration of Estates Act. The Master responded on 26 March 2025, rejecting the objections and confirming the validity of the appointment.

• Whether the application was properly brought as a declaratur application rather than a review of the Master's decision
• Whether the applicant committed material non-disclosure by failing to disclose correspondence with the Master and the Master's response to her objections
• Whether the proper procedure for challenging an executor's appointment was followed
• Whether an executor appointed jointly with another in a will can act alone when the co-executor has died

The matter was struck off the roll with costs.

Where an applicant seeks to challenge a decision of the Master of the High Court regarding the appointment of an executor, the proper remedy is by way of review of the administrative decision, not an application for declaratory relief under section 14 of the High Court Act. Section 14 is intended for determination of existing, future or contingent rights or obligations, not for reversal of administrative decisions. An applicant commits material non-disclosure when approaching the court without disclosing that the same issues have been raised with the relevant administrative authority (in this case the Master) by prior correspondence, even if a response was not received. Such non-disclosure goes to the core of proper procedure and warrants dismissal of the application.

The court noted that even if the applicant had not received the Master's response to her letter of 18 March 2025, one would expect that she would seek an order compelling the Master to respond to her concerns rather than proceeding directly to court on the same issues. The court also observed that the existence of the letter dated 26 March 2025 from the Master's office made it improper for the applicant to approach the court on the same issues without disclosing the prior correspondence. While not directly decided, the court's discussion suggests that applicants must exhaust administrative remedies or at minimum await responses from administrative bodies before approaching the court, and must seek orders compelling responses where necessary rather than proceeding as if no engagement had occurred.

This case is significant for clarifying the distinction between declaratory relief under section 14 of the High Court Act and review proceedings in the context of challenging administrative decisions by the Master of the High Court. It reinforces the principle that challenges to decisions of public officials exercising statutory powers must be brought by way of review, not declaratur. The case also emphasizes the duty of material disclosure in applications, particularly the requirement to disclose prior engagement with administrative bodies on the same issues before approaching the court. It provides guidance on the proper procedure for challenging the appointment of an executor and the consequences of selecting the wrong procedural mechanism.