Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
AN attempt by Tonderai Mugabe, a man claiming to be the secret son of the late President Robert Mugabe, to cash in on his estate ended in the High Court in Harare last week.
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.
