Simon Bhiri v The Master of the High Court and Others

The applicant was married to the late Patience Bhiri who died in a road traffic accident on 13 May 2012. They had contracted a civil marriage on 20 October 2006 at Bulawayo Magistrates' Court and had five children. Following her death, the applicant failed to register the estate within the mandatory fourteen (14) days as required by section 5 of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6:01]. The 3rd respondent, the deceased's brother, registered the estate with the Master of the High Court in Harare without informing the applicant. The Master appointed the 2nd respondent as curator bonis pending appointment of an executor at an edict meeting, believing there were disputes amongst family members. The applicant only discovered the registration when inquiring about his late wife's terminal benefits from her employers. On 22 August 2012, the applicant applied for the estate to be transferred to the Deputy Master in Bulawayo. The Master published a notice calling for an edict meeting in Harare on 27 September 2012, a day before this application was filed on 7 September 2012.

• Whether the applicant could challenge the registration of the estate by the 3rd respondent when he had failed to register it himself within the statutory period
• Whether the estate should be transferred from the Master in Harare to the Deputy Master in Bulawayo
• Whether the scheduled edict meeting in Harare should be stopped or postponed
• Whether the appointment of the 2nd respondent as curator bonis was improper

The application was dismissed with costs.

Where a surviving spouse fails to register a deceased estate within the mandatory fourteen (14) day period prescribed by section 5 of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6:01], they cannot be heard to complain when another person entitled to register the estate (such as the nearest relative) does so. In determining whether to transfer an estate or postpone an edict meeting, the court will apply a balance of convenience test, weighing factors such as costs already incurred, inconvenience to parties, location of interested parties, and whether the applicant's concerns can be adequately addressed at the scheduled edict meeting.

The court observed that if the applicant were appointed executor at the scheduled edict meeting, all the issues raised in his application would invariably fall away. The court also noted that while the applicant would be inconvenienced by having to travel to Harare, this could not be compared to the costs of canceling the scheduled edict meeting and starting the process all over in Bulawayo, and that he had caused this situation by his failure to register the estate timeously.

This case clarifies the procedural requirements and consequences flowing from section 5 of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6:01] in Zimbabwean law. It demonstrates that when multiple persons have the right and obligation to register an estate (such as a surviving spouse and nearest relative), failure by one party to act timeously bars them from challenging the registration by another entitled party. The case also illustrates the court's approach to balancing convenience and costs in estate administration matters, particularly regarding venue and the continuation of scheduled edict meetings where preparations have already been made.