Online Reporter
Solomon Bhumu
Post Reporter
A 71-YEAR-OLD granny – Mrs Tessy Zvemisha – and her four minor grandchildren were left homeless after being evicted from their Dangamvura house by the Messenger of Court.
The eviction stems from a disputed will allegedly forged by Mrs Eunice Zvemisha, the second wife of Tessy’s late husband, Major Kennedy Zvemisha.
She claims that Eunice falsified the will after Major Zvemisha’s death in 1995, declaring the house at Number 144 Area 7, Dangamvura, as her own.
In response, Eunice alleged that the house legally belonged to her, not the husband, though the will was written by the late Major Zvemisha.
She said Tessy was married somewhere and only came back to claim maintenance from their late husband.
Tessy disputed this, arguing that Eunice, who was residing in Chiredzi at that time did not stay in the house during their marriage. The matter is currently being contested.
The protracted property dispute has culminated in the eviction of the family from their Dangamvura house, leaving them stranded and sleeping outdoors.
The Manica Post this week visited the Area 7 house where the family claimed to have spent 11 nights outside with some of their furniture strewn all over.
Gertrude Zvemisha, the daughter of Tessy Zvemisha, said the family had resided in the house with their mother, the late Major Kennedy Zvemisha’s legal wife, since his passing on.
However, three months after Major Zvemisha’s death, Eunice, referred to by the family as their late father’s ‘mistress’, produced a document purportedly being his last will and testament.
The document allegedly named Eunice as the beneficiary of the house, sparking the ongoing dispute.
Gertrude recalled the shock and disbelief her family experienced when Eunice, presented the will claiming ownership of their Dangamvura house.
“Our father passed away while staying with our mother in that house, their matrimonial home. Eunice’s claim did not add up, as she was residing in Chiredzi at the time of his death and was not part of our household,” explained Ms Zvemisha.
The family decided to take legal action, challenging the will’s authenticity and asserting the house as their mother’s matrimonial home.
During this process, they uncovered irregularities in the documents, suspecting Eunice had altered the ownership records.
In 2018, one Marita Makahwi appeared, claiming to have purchased the house, and initiated eviction proceedings. This caught the family off guard, as they were still awaiting a court hearing regarding the ownership dispute.
The situation escalated in 2021 when the family discovered that the municipal water bill records had been altered to reflect Eunice’s name.
“We were caught off guard again in 2018 when someone claimed to have bought the house and started pushing for our eviction. In 2021, we discovered that the water bill from the council had been changed to Eunice’s name without our knowledge. It was then that we realised that efforts were being made to silently evict us,” said Ms Zvemisha.
In 2024, Makahwi filed another eviction application with the High Court, naming Eunice as a central party.
Upon receiving the court papers, Tessy said she stumbled upon multiple wills, each with different and questionable dates.
This prompted her to visit the Deeds Office, where she uncovered a previous matter involving the house had been lodged and recorded.
Tessy shared her own ordeal.
“My husband passed away at our house, where I had been staying with him. Although he had married Eunice previously, they had separated by the time of his death,” she said, expressing shock and dismay at Eunice’s actions following her husband’s passing on.
“Eunice allegedly sold off our family cattle, vehicle, and emptied my late husband’s bank accounts. These actions were unjustified and have caused us immense suffering,” she said.
The late Mr Zvemisha’s younger brother, Willias, corroborated the family’s account, arguing that Eunice attended the funeral with her three children, but made no mention of the will at the time.
He explained that although the family was aware of the tension between the two women, they chose not to intervene in the property matters due to legal constraints.
“As a family, we could not interfere or question who was staying at the house, fearing we could be seen as meddling in legal affairs and possibly face arrest,” he said, adding that their attempts at mediation have been unsuccessful, with Eunice refusing to engage directly and instead communicating through legal representatives.
Eunice said the will in question was written and stayed in files for three years before the death of her husband, and Tessy never questioned anything about it.
She said Tessy applied for maintenance in 1999, and had requested to stay in the house up until after her child turned 18 years, but later refused to vacate the house. She said she worked for the house while she was employed at Chiredzi Rural Council.
“The house that she is claiming is not hers, neither my late husband’s. Yes, he is the one who wrote the will, but I had acquired that house through my manager who had been transferred from Chiredzi where l was also working when I was at Chiredzi Rural District Council.
“In 1999 after the death of my husband, she dragged me to the civil court seeking maintenance. That is when she requested to stay in the house because she had cited that she only wanted to stay there up until her daughter turns 18 years. Now it is over 18 years. I don’t know who has been legally advising her, urging her to sell every property that was left by my late husband. She is now left with nothing. She took about 90 000 Zimbabwean dollars that were in his account and sold the cattle that were left at my husband’s rural home at Odzi to fight me through the courts over my house. She could have built two or three houses with all that money than to claim my house,” said Eunice.
She added: “She was aware when they occupied the house that it belonged to me. She was not there when I sweated for that house. She was married somewhere while l was working hard for myself. I was shocked when I first heard that she was in the process of changing the title deeds into her name. “If she was not satisfied with the will, why did she wait so long to challenge it. The will stayed for three years in the files before my husband died.”
