Tonderai,
seeking a declaration to reopen former President Mugabe’s estate to include
himself as a rightful heir, withdrew his claim under the weight of legal and
factual scrutiny, and with it, tendered wasted costs, that is paying the costs
of the estate in resisting his claims.
The civil suit,
which named the former President’s daughter and executor Bona Mugabe as the
respondent, unfolded before Justice Tawanda Chitapi, who subjected the claim to
intense interrogation.
Tonderai’s
case, already fraught with deficiencies, unravelled further under the court’s
legal microscope.
Central to its
demise was his failure to challenge the decision of the Master of the High
Court within the statutory six-week period, a fatal flaw that rendered his
claim legally prescribed, meaning he was no longer able to launch it.
Represented by
Mr T.M. Zenda of Hungwe and Partners, Tonderai sought to compel Bona Mugabe to
surrender the death certificate of the late President Mugabe, going so far as
to raise the spectre of contempt of court should she fail to comply.
This demand, as
dramatic as it was legally dubious, was anchored in an attempt to invoke the
provisions of the Administration of Estates Act, a move that could only be
described as a desperate gambit to circumvent the ironclad time limitations
governing estate disputes.
On the opposing
side stood Mr Addington Chinake of Kantor and Immerman, whose incisive
arguments systematically dismantled Tonderai’s case.
With unerring
precision, Mr Chinake exposed the glaring deficiencies in the claimant’s
submissions, both in law and in fact.
He asserted,
with unassailable conviction, that the provisions outlined in paragraph 2 of
the claimant’s draft order were devoid of any lawful foundation.
Justice Chitapi
concurred, noting that the order sought could not be granted on the basis of
the flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence presented.
In one of the
most striking moments of the proceedings, Justice Chitapi dismissed Tonderai’s
reliance on his self-adopted surname, Mugabe, as wholly irrelevant.
A name, the
judge observed, however acquired, does not confer legal status as a descendant.
The court found
Tonderai’s case to be so procedurally unsound that Mr Chinake described it as
“fatally defective,” leaving the court with no legal avenue to entertain the
application.
He asserted
that, on the substantive merits, the situation was even more precarious.
It was on that
basis that Mr Zenda’s reasoning was swiftly dismantled, with the court pointing
out that the claim was fundamentally time-barred.
His arguments,
though spirited, ultimately failed to surmount the insurmountable legal
hurdles.
Faced with the
inevitability of defeat, Mr Zenda requested a brief adjournment to confer with
his client. When the court reconvened, the decision was clear, Tonderai would
withdraw his case and shoulder the burden of wasted costs.
In light of
this development, the court rendered its ruling with the assent of both
parties. Thus, the name and reputation of the Late President Mugabe were
fortuitously restored, free from the sensational and demonstrably unfounded
allegations of paternity that had become the fodder of tabloid sensationalism.
Justice Chitapi
accepted the withdrawal, describing the case as fatally defective and legally
incurable, a decision that spared the court from further expenditure of its
time and resources.
Mr Chinake
argued emphatically that President Mugabe’s estate had already been wound up
and distributed, leaving no room for further claims.
The law, Mr
Chinake asserted, provides a safeguard for executors, ensuring that once an
estate has been distributed, it cannot be reopened.
Tonderai’s
reliance on DNA results and a birth certificate as evidence also faltered under
scrutiny.
For such
documents to hold probative value, they must meet the stringent requirements of
the Civil Evidence Act, standards Tonderai’s evidence failed to meet.
Justice
Chitapi, echoing Mr Chinake’s arguments, dismissed the purported evidence as
lacking credibility and value, undermining the very foundation of Tonderai’s
claim.
In his filings,
Tonderai alleged that he was born on April 20, 1977, at the Chimoio base in
Mozambique during the liberation war. He claimed his mother, Hilda Maeka, known
by her Chimurenga name, Cde Paidamoyo, was the late president’s lover and had
concealed his paternity out of fear of Sally Mugabe’s wrath.
According to
Tonderai, his maternal grandfather, Thomas Maeka, had unsuccessfully sought
recognition for him from the Mugabe family.
Despite these
claims, Tonderai faced an insurmountable legal and evidentiary mountain.
Justice
Chitapi’s incisive questions quickly exposed the weaknesses in his case,
leaving his arguments in tatters.
In the end, the
court’s ruling reinforced the finality of the estate’s distribution and the
inviolability of the law protecting executors from belated challenges.
Thus,
Tonderai’s bid for recognition ended not with triumph, but with withdrawal, his
claim relegated to the annals of legal misadventures, and the Mugabe estate
left undisturbed. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment