The applicant, Tawanda Katsande, claimed to be the sole surviving child of the late Edwell Benny Katsande who died on 18 August 2006. She was born out of wedlock in 1982 and was 24 at the time of her father's death. She alleged that the first respondent, Augustine Katsande (her late father's biological brother and executor of the estate DR 1696/2006), misrepresented to the Master that the deceased had died without children. Augustine sold the estate property to the fourth respondent, Ambrose Navhaya, in 2017, with the proceeds benefiting himself and his younger brother Shingirayi. The applicant had moved to South Africa in 2006 to raise funds and only discovered the sale in 2021, filing this application in 2022. She only obtained a birth certificate bearing her father's name in September 2017 (eleven years after his death), obtained through her mother's relative as informant, having previously used her mother's surname "Muchenje". Her mother died in 2008.
The application was dismissed with costs.
Where an applicant claims heirship to an estate based on alleged biological paternity, DNA testing between the applicant and verified biological relatives of the deceased is the appropriate method to establish the relationship. Where such DNA testing conducted at an independent laboratory with both parties physically present shows no biological relationship between the applicant and the deceased's biological sibling, the claim to be an heir fails regardless of documentary evidence such as birth certificates, particularly where those documents were obtained through irregular means and long after the deceased's death.
The court observed that the substance of a claim giving rise to a declaratur must be examined to determine whether the declaratur itself has prescribed. A declaratur cannot be divorced from its causa and cannot be used as a backdoor to seek coercive relief that could have been sought within prescribed time limits (citing Dhliwayo & Ors v Tonoziva Bere N.O & Ors HH 164/24). However, the court also noted that an heir cannot be unlawfully cheated of their inheritance, and if the applicant were the lawful heir, prescription would not bar the claim as the sale would have been improper. The court further noted that while the DNA results suggested no relationship between the applicant and Augustine, it was not for the court to "comb the clan for relatives for other DNA tests to fit the narrative she has lived with", and that the applicant's mother would have been best placed to shed light on paternity. The court also observed that it was "perhaps not just a coincidence that doubts lingered in the family circle about applicant's paternity".
This case demonstrates the critical importance of establishing biological paternity through reliable DNA evidence in succession disputes, particularly where claims are based on alleged filial relationships. It affirms that courts will require independent, verifiable scientific evidence to establish heirship, especially where there are procedural irregularities (such as late birth certificate issuance without proper informants) and family doubts about paternity. The case also illustrates that while preliminary technical objections regarding form and prescription may not be dispositive, substantive proof of the fundamental claim (biological relationship) is essential. It reinforces that succession rights cannot be established through documentary evidence alone where the underlying factual basis (paternity) is disputed and can be scientifically tested.