adminCourt Reporter
A PROMINENT city lawyer Advocate Sampson Samuel Mlaudzi of Samp Mlaudzi and Partners Legal Practitioners has been sucked in an acrimonious wrangle over the control of the estate of slain Beitbridge businessman, Fanuel Mulaudzi.
The businessman was axed several times on the back and head while his hands were tied with an electric cable by three masked robbers who broke into his house last year in November.
Mulaudzi’s widow, Ambedzanani Muleya, last week filed a court application at the Bulawayo High Court challenging the authenticity of a Will and Last Testament purportedly left behind by her husband.
In the court papers, Muleya through her lawyers, Mutuso, Taruvinga and Mhiribidi Legal Practitioners, cited Adv Mlaudzi, the Estate of the Late Fanuel Mulaudzi (under DRB No. 748/14) and the Master of the High Court as first, second and third respondents respectively.
Muleya, in her founding affidavit, accuses Adv Mlaudzi of fraudulently drafting the will and forging her husband’s signature.
She further accuses Adv Mlaudzi of clandestinely nominating himself as the executor dative of the estate through the purported will that he prepared before registering it with the Master of the High Court under Case Number DRB 748/14.
“I was traditionally married to the late Fanuel Mulaudzi sometime in 2008 and all the rituals to formalise our marriage were performed in line with our customs and lobola was paid. When my husband passed on I was advised that he died testate and had named first respondent (Adv Mlaudzi) as the executor in the will. However, when I inquired about the will, the first respondent confirmed its existence but I was shocked to learn that I’m not named as a beneficiary,” said Muleya.
She said she and Mulaudzi had a son, Candrick, during their marriage whose paternity was now being questioned by Adv Mlaudzi. “I have perused the record under DRB 748/14 and I have noted that there are serious anomalies in not only the way it was drafted, but generally the manner in which the process is being handled by the first respondent is clearly not transparent,” said Muleya.
According to the court papers, the disputed will was purportedly executed on October 12, 2012, and subsequently registered with the Master of the High Court on November 20, 2014, as a live will by Adv Mlaudzi.
“I’m advised that a live will is lodged and registered during the lifetime of a testator and certain formalities have to be observed in terms of the law. My husband died on November 5, 2014, and this can’t be done after a person has passed on and the first respondent as a lawyer with years of experience is surely aware of this position. There’re no satisfactory reasons given by the first respondent why it took him two years to lodge the will and why he misrepresented facts,” said Muleya.
She also queries Adv Mlaudzi’s position as the executor, arguing that there were irregularities in the manner in which the matter was being handled.
“The first respondent is not the executor of estate of the late Fanuel Mulaudzi because a person deemed to be an executor of an estate after being authorised by the Master of the High Court must be in possession of a letter of administration on appointment. First respondent does not have these documents,” said Mulaudzi’s widow.
Muleya also accuses Adv Mlaudzi of forging her son’s signature in the waiver of security.
She said Adv Mlaudzi without her knowledge or that of the Master of the High Court, proceeded to distribute property under the estate.
“I’m advised that under ordinary circumstances a duly appointed executor distributes property after he had been issued with a certificate by the Master of the High Court or with the consent of the estate after being issued with the interim statement of the distribution account,” argued Muleya.
“The first thing that struck me about the will was the purported signature of my husband and of course my absence from the will, and the presence of certain people on the will that I swear my husband would never have included them in his will. Be that as it may upon further scrutiny of the will, I noted that the will purportedly executed on October 17, 2012, and included in it was a Toyota Hilux (registration number ABT 4033) bought in 2014. I knew that my husband had no psychic powers let alone Messianic powers to foresee in October 2012 that he would buy a Toyota Hilux vehicle in 2014 right up to what its registration number would be,” she queried.
Muleya said the Last Will and New Testament were not authorised by her husband.
“This is clearly fraud and the inclusion of this vehicle is testimony to the fraud. I’m advised that the law requires certain formalities to be followed when amending a will,” said Muleya.
According to the law it is trite that a testator who wishes to amend his or her will may do so by concluding a codicil or a New Testament altogether.
The assets which were listed in the will include a Toyota Hilux, a Toyota Land Cruiser, two Toyota Hiace minibuses, a Toyota GLX petrol engine, 251 cattle, a farm, four houses in Beitbridge and one in Bulawayo’s Sauerstown suburb and undisclosed amounts kept in three different bank accounts. The will states that the executor is the signatory of the accounts and shall conduct withdrawal together with Mulaudzi’s eldest son, Andrew, and sister Thinamano.
According to the will cattle, sheep and goats shall be shared between Mulaudzi’s children, dependants and next of kin as deemed fit by the executor and administrator of the estate. The executor in all execution and administration shall consult with Mulaudzi’s mother, Betty Mulaudzi, Thinamano and Andrew.
In the will it is stated that Fanuel Mulaudzi Family Trust should be created where all immovable properties shall be registered in that name.
Muleya seeks an order that declares the will null and void and compelling the Master of the High Court to appoint a neutral executor to administer the affairs of the estate with Adv Mlaudzi paying the cost of the suit.
Online Reporter