Susan Rufudza v Oliver Masomera (in his capacity as Executor Dative of estate late Socrates Zimunhu) and Others

The plaintiff, Susan Rufudza, was the customary widow of the late Socrates Zimunhu. They married in 1994 under the Customary Marriages Act and divorced in 2003, with the plaintiff awarded a 40% share in stand 14410/5 Kuwadzana. The parties reconciled in 2004 and resumed living together until the deceased's death, having two minor children, but the marriage was not re-solemnised. The first defendant was appointed executor dative of the deceased's estate on 17 June 2013. The executor called meetings with beneficiaries, which the plaintiff did not attend. After obtaining the Master's authority on 18 February 2016, the executor sold the Kuwadzana property on 27 June 2016 to settle estate liabilities. The plaintiff objected to the sale, complaining to the Master. The Master found the executor may not have exercised due diligence but referred the plaintiff to court. On 14 October 2016, the plaintiff issued summons seeking to set aside the sale, remove the executor, and obtain other relief.

• Whether the plaintiff followed the correct procedure in approaching the High Court directly without first obtaining a definitive decision from the Master of the High Court
• Whether complaints about the conduct of an executor dative and the disposal of estate property must first be lodged with the Master before approaching the High Court
• Whether the plaintiff's approach to the High Court was premature

The preliminary points raised by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants about premature approach to the High Court and use of wrong procedure were upheld. The plaintiff's claims were struck off. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants' costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

The administration of deceased estates is an administrative function assigned to the Master of the High Court. Complaints concerning the conduct of an executor dative, the appointment of an executor, and the disposal of estate property must first be lodged with the Master who must make a definitive decision. Only after the Master has made a decision can an aggrieved party approach the High Court to review the Master's decision on recognized grounds of review of administrative decisions. Approaching the High Court directly without first obtaining a definitive decision from the Master is premature and procedurally incorrect, as it amounts to interference with the administrative authority of the Master.

The court observed that issues of joinder and non-joinder can never be fatal to a case, as Rule 87 of the High Court Rules provides remedies allowing parties to be joined or removed at any stage of proceedings, either on application or by the court mero motu. The court also noted that without the Master's consent, an executor has no power to dispose of estate property, meaning that any challenge to such disposal necessarily challenges the Master's authorization.

This case reinforces the fundamental principle in Zimbabwean law that the Master of the High Court has primary administrative jurisdiction over deceased estates. It clarifies that aggrieved parties must exhaust administrative remedies by obtaining a definitive decision from the Master before approaching the High Court. The case emphasizes the proper procedural route: complaints to the Master first, followed by review of the Master's decision if dissatisfied. It confirms that both the appointment of executors and authorization for disposal of estate property are administrative functions requiring complaints to be directed to the Master in the first instance. The case serves as an important reminder of the jurisdictional boundaries between administrative and judicial functions in estate administration.