The Registrar-General Ghana v Master of the High Court and Others

The applicant, the Registrar-General of Ghana, was appointed as Executor and Trustee of the late Edward Hekaku Boohene's estate under a will confirmed by the High Court of Ghana. The deceased died on 7 October 2008 in Ghana, owning immovable property in Zimbabwe (16A Enterprise Road, Glen Lorne, Harare). The estate was registered in Zimbabwe under DR 1130/10, and the Master of the High Court of Zimbabwe (first respondent) accepted the foreign letters of administration in 2010. The deceased's children (second to sixth respondents) disputed the will in Ghana but lost their High Court challenge. Subsequently, the Master held three edict meetings (3 August 2016, 19 August 2016, and 14 November 2016) without proper notice to the applicant. At these meetings, the Master first appointed Abdul Kassim as executor, then later appointed the second respondent after Kassim renounced, effectively revoking the applicant's letters of administration. The applicant was not invited to the first and third meetings and challenged these decisions as irregular and ultra vires.

• Whether the Master of the High Court has power to revoke foreign letters of administration that had been previously accepted
• Whether the Master acted ultra vires the provisions of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6:07] in holding edict meetings and appointing new executors
• Whether the Master's decisions exhibited prejudicial bias
• Whether the applicant had locus standi to challenge the Master's decisions
• Whether the Master had jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of a will confirmed by a foreign court
• What are the proper procedures the Master must follow when dissatisfied with an executor's performance

1. The holding of edict meetings by the 1st respondent is declared illegal. The meetings held on 3 August, 19 August 2016, and 14 November 2016 are set aside. 2. The 1st respondent's withdrawal of Letters of Administration issued in favour of the applicant is set aside. 3. The appointment of the 2nd respondent as executor of the Estate Late Edward Hekaku Boohene is set aside. 4. The applicant is confirmed as the executor in the Estate Late Edward Hekaku Boohene and shall continue as such. 5. Respondents to bear the costs.

The Master of the High Court has no power to revoke foreign letters of administration that have been accepted and sealed under section 35 of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6:07]. Once such letters are accepted, they have the same effect as letters granted by the Master, and the executor acquires rights that must be respected. The Master's powers derive solely from statute and are limited to those expressly conferred by the Act. If the Master is dissatisfied with an executor's performance, sections 116 and 117 prescribe the proper procedures: the Master may inquire and take expedient action under section 116, but only the High Court has power to remove an executor under section 117. The Master cannot call edict meetings to appoint a new executor when the office of executor is not vacant, nor can he question the validity of appointments made by a competent foreign court. Such actions are ultra vires and therefore unlawful and subject to review.

The court made observations on conflict of laws principles, noting that a will is formally valid if it complies with the lex loci actus or lex domicilii at execution for movables, and with the lex loci actus or lex loci situs for immovables. The court observed that a testator's will relates to the entirety of the estate unless the testator specifies otherwise. The court also commented that if the Master needed guidance on a question of law regarding an executor's appointment, the proper procedure would be to lay a report before a judge rather than acting unilaterally. While dismissing points in limine, the court noted it was prepared to condone non-compliance with procedural rules regarding statement of review grounds where no prejudice resulted, preferring to decide matters on merits rather than technicalities. The court also observed that the second respondent's counter-application was misconceived as it sought to challenge the will's validity indirectly when that issue had been determined by the Ghana High Court.

This case establishes important principles regarding the Master of the High Court's powers in relation to foreign letters of administration in Zimbabwe. It confirms that once the Master accepts foreign letters of administration under section 35 of the Administration of Estates Act, those letters have the same effect as if granted by the Master himself, but the Master cannot unilaterally revoke them. The case reaffirms that the Master's powers are limited to those expressly conferred by statute (Drummond principle), and that only the High Court has power to remove an executor under section 117. The judgment clarifies the proper supervisory procedures the Master must follow under sections 116-117 when dissatisfied with an executor's performance. It also addresses conflict of laws issues, confirming that the Master cannot inquire into the validity of a will that has been confirmed by a competent foreign court. The case is significant for estate administration practice in Zimbabwe, particularly where foreign elements are involved.