The complexities of the estate of the late national hero Dr Herbert Ushewokunze, and the problems of figuring out all the assets he held with disputed ownership, is haunting the heirs and beneficiaries of that estate who are still fighting succession battles over parts of the estate, nearly 30 years after his death.
Dr Ushewokunze, a former cabinet minister died on December
10, 1995 and was buried at the National Heroes Acre.
At the centre of the latest estate dispute is a United
Kingdom-based nurse, Ms Georgina Dadirai Savanhu, who is fighting to retain
three Bulawayo properties she claimed were donated to her by the national hero
during the couple’s two-year relationship from 1981 to 1983.
During this time Dr Ushewokunze bought three properties in
Bulawayo and registered them in Ms Savanhu’s name, but the problem is not as
simple as just looking at a title deed as the executors and trustees of the
estate say the three were always part of Dr Ushewokunze’s estate and just
registered in another name to circumvent the Zanu PF leadership code. In any
case there have already been High Court judgments that concern the stands,
judgments Ms Savanhu wants reversed.
An additional complication is that there are claims she
sold the property, or some of the property, although that purchaser is now also
dead, and that some of the land was subdivided subsequently and sold again,
creating a lengthening chain of potential ownership. So the estate of the
buyer, Duncan Kona, is also involved. In Ms Savanhu’s case the fact that her
name is on the title deeds means that the High Court will hear the case in
full.
Ms Savanhu recently filed a lawsuit at the High Court
citing the estate of Ushewokunze, Estate Late Duncan William Kona, Nomsa Hazel
Ncube, Taruberekera Netsai Makhosazana, Dlamini Township Residents Association,
Riverside Estate Trust, Ambrose Nzewi and Nonoti Properties. Bulawayo City
Council, the Registrar of Deeds office in Bulawayo, the Surveyor General’s
office in Bulawayo, the Sheriff of Zimbabwe and the Master of High Court were
also cited, since they are the ones who will have to implement whatever the
High Court decides.
Ms Savanhu, more than 27 years after the death of her
former lover, wants the three properties excluded from the estate claiming they
were donated to her. She also wants to set aside some High Court judgments
pertaining to the three stands measuring a total of 40ha, claiming these
judgments were made in error.
She claimed that following termination of her relationship
with Dr Ushewokunze, the properties were left in her name because they had been
bought for her as a gift.
The first round in the latest dispute went in favour of Ms
Savanhu. In a judgment handed down on Wednesday, Justice Webster Chinamora
threw out numerous preliminary points raised by the respondents seeking to
block Ms Savanhu from being heard, paving way for the matter to be decided on
the merits of the evidence and argument presented by both sides. The title
deeds were the decisive factor in the hearing of this case.
Ms Savanhu, in her application, is also seeking orders
declaring her owner of immovable property in question, that she did not enter
into any agreement to surrender the immovable property to Dr Ushewokunze, that
she never sold the immovable property to Mr Kona and that, therefore, any
agreement of sale between Mr Kona and members of the Dlamini Township Residence
Association and Riverside Estate Trust is invalid.
In addition, Ms Savanhu also wants an order declaring that
the subdivision permit and all other official documents relating to the
subdivision of the immovable property, which were issued in the name of Mr Kona
in respect of the immovable property, to be deemed to have been issued to her.
Further, she wants an order directing that all purchasers
of subdivisions of the immovable property, who purchased the same from Mr Kona,
be directed to enter into agreements of sale with her, failing which they will
be evicted from the immovable property.
In this regard, Justice Chinamora agreed with Ms Savanhu
legal counsel that the averments made were relevant to warrant the court
hearing arguments on the merit.
“The applicant is attempting to vindicate her rights in the
immovable property, over which she holds title deeds. She acknowledges that the
immovable property had been subdivided on account of what she terms as the
unlawful and illegal actions of Mr Kona.
Instead of seeking the eviction of all those persons who
purchased subdivisions from Mr Kona, Ms Savanhu is offering them an opportunity
to regularise their standing with her, and only if they fail or refuse to do so
will they then be evicted.
In her application, Ms Savanhu argued that unbeknown to her
Dr Ushewokunze tried without success to transfer the three properties to her
daughter Ms Makhosazana, although he seemed to have believed that transfer had
been done.
Dr Ushewokunze then sold the properties to the late Mr
Kona, who was made to believe that the properties were registered in the name
of Ms Makhosazana.
While an agreement of sale between Makhosazana and Mr Kona
dated June 4 1987 was prepared by Lazarus & Sarif law firm, it is disputed
by Ms Makhosazana who denies contacting Mr Kona.
But in her affidavit Ms Makhosazana argued that she was in
the UK at the time of the alleged agreement of sale, and that she never owned
the properties in dispute.
Until Dr Ushewokunze’s death in 1995, no legal proceedings
to recover or transfer ownership of the properties from Ms Savanhu were
instituted and title remained in her name to date. Ms Savanhu argued that the
agreement dated July 4, 1987 purportedly signed between her and Mr Kona was
fraudulent, since Mr Kona did not even know of her existence until early to
mid-1990s.
But the Estate of Dr Ushewokunze wanted to bar Ms Savanhu
from being heard arguing her application was an abuse of court process, because
it concerns, in part, efforts to set aside a default judgment that was granted
against her in 2000, arguing that she sat on her laurels for almost two
decades, and that therefore, she could not now be allowed to sue.
But Justice Chinamora found that Ms Savanhu only became
aware of various acts of fraud and unlawful attempts to disenfranchise her of
the immovable property, towards the end of 2020.
It was the discovery of these facts between October 2020
and December 2020 that prompted Ms Savanhu to rush to court and Justice
Chinamora ruled that it was not a proper characterisation of the application to
state that the cause of action arose 20 years ago.
In his view, Justice Chinamora said there are critical
issues that stand to be decided in the application, particularly because the
immovable property is registered in Ms Savanhu’s name.
“The court cannot turn a blind eye to her allegations of ownership
of the immovable property,” he said. “At the very least, they must be
interrogated. Her claim does not appear to me to be frivolous or to constitute
an abuse of court process.” Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment