Zulu Vs Peter Zulu 2 Others 1 3
Zulu Vs Peter Zulu 2 Others 1 3
21812012
(Civil Jurisdiction)
BETWEEN:
AND
JUDGMENT
Paul Zulu.
Brief facts are that the late Peter Paul Zulu, died intestate
had one child with her, called Monase Zulu. The 1st respondent
And the 3rd respondent is the brother. Evidence was led by the
was born on 15th May 2005, five months after he had died. In
- J3 -
the 3rd respondent, seeking an order from the Court that House
Peter Paul Zulu and that the house should devolve upon her as
child. She wanted the house sold so that the proceeds could be
and found that at the time the deceased bought the house in
dispute, the appellant was not yet married to him and she
never even lived in that house. He took the view that the
members. And as such, the learned trial Judge found that the
appellant had admitted that she never knew anything about the
said house and that her late husband never told her about it.
The learned trial Judge found that house No. 10375, Nyumba
Succession Act did not apply. He was of the view that the
house did not form part of the estate of the deceased. He
produced in court.
- J6 -
fact that the appellant largely kept the deceased's family out of
that the evidence on record proved that the appellant was guilty
Monase Zulu and Belita Zulu and that the remainder of the
how she used the money, documents and properties that she
shall deal with grounds two and three together because they
Chibiya argued that the fact that the deceased bought house
He submitted that there was no proof that the 1St and 2nd
a whole. He pointed out that the fact that the deceased was
rentals from the house, did not qualify the house to be family
deceased at the time the family bought the house and that she
did not know anything about it. The appellants stated that the
because he was the oldest son to the 1st and 2nd respondents
that the appellant and her late husband never even lived in the
said house. They pointed out that it was not their claim that
the letter which was written by the deceased to his mother was
a Will.
The real issue as we see it in ground one of this appeal is
of the estate of the late Paul Peter Zulu and whether the
to that house.
In deciding whether the appellant was entitled to the
this matter because the issue that was before him was not
issue was whether the house formed part of the estate and the
Peter Zulu bought the house in dispute for the benefit of his
house. It was their evidence that the deceased had opted to live
late husband never told her anything about the house. She
married her and that she was not aware that the respondents
- J16 -
The learned trial Judge who had the advantage of seeing and
held that:
"Before this court can reverse findings of fact made by a trial judge,
we would have to be satisfied that the findings in question were
either perverse or made in the absence of any relevant evidence or
upon a misapprehension of the facts or that they were findings
which, on a proper view of the evidence, no trial court acting
correctly could reasonably make."
satisfied, from the evidence, that the house falls within the
house does not form part of the estate of the late Peter Paul
such, the letter has no force of law. A Will must meet the
the house in dispute for the benefit of his parents and siblings.
was the deceased's only daughter. Counsel pointed out that the
that the deceased was taken to court for impregnating her was
only with his consent unless an affiliation order has been made
Act in the Subordinate Court but this was not done in this
the child was the deceased's child, were not justified and not
support the finding by the trial Judge that the deceased had
below how she met the deceased and became pregnant. The
181 and 2nd respondents knew about the pregnancy and they
accepted the baby. The respondents stated that the matter was
contended that Belita Zulu was born after the deceased had
view, is whether the late Paul Peter Zulu was the father of 1
except on the joint request of the mother and himself and upon
Registration Act to this matter. The late Paul Peter Zulu died
the court below and testified how she knew the late Paul Peter
- J22 -
never had any other child other than Monase Zulu. Based on
the facts in this case, the appellant could not have known the
existence of the child when her husband was alive since her
late husband died before the child was born. We have not found
we dismiss it.
that where the deceased has died intestate, the Court may, on
the appellant does not believe that the child exists and if it
does, the appellant does not believe that she is the child of the
appellant believed that it was only her and her child who were
appellant believed that she was entitled to the money she had
used.
appeal. They argued that there was evidence on record that the
- I24 -
appellant collected money from the estate of the late Peter Paul
administrator and that she did not distribute the money to the
administratrix and argued that the appellant did not rebut the
evidence that she squandered the estate of the late Paul Peter 1
on the basis that she squandered the money from her late
belonging to the estate, for her own use, without his knowledge
and authority. She single handedly:
- J26 -
Life Insurance;
sued.
used the money for her upkeep and that of the child since she
3
- 127 -
held that:
"An Administrator has legal duties to the beneficiaries and other
interested parties including creditors; an Administrator may be
called upon by a court to account for the administration of the estate
or for default. There are many cases where Administrators have
been found liable for conduct in breach of the law. Even an
Administrator who is a surviving spouse can also be required to
account for the distribution of the estate by any interested person...
We wish to make it clear that courts will intervene in matters of
administration of deceased's estates where there is sufficient
evidence of breach of provisions of the law... courts would intervene
where sufficient reasons exist and would remove an Administrator,
nullify or revoke a grant under the Intestate Succession Act...""
the time we heard this appeal, because she did not want to
share the money with this child. We are satisfied that sufficient
reasons existed upon which the learned trial Judge intervened
and revoked the appointment of the appellant as co-
administratrix and ordered her to provide an inventory and to
render an account of all the money she had collected to the
exclusion of her co-administrator. It is our considered view that
grounds two and three have no merit. We hereby dismiss them.
. C. ICAOMA
E. N. C. MUYOVWE
SUPREME COURT JUDGE SUPREME COURT JUDGE