The executor of the late socialite Genius “Ginimbi” Kadungure’s estate Patricia Darangwa yesterday told the Kadungure family that they could not seek reversal of his unsigned will after they initially endorsed it.
Ginimbi died in a fatal accident on November 8, 2020, leaving behind a fleet of top-of-the-range vehicles and a multi-million-dollar mansion in Domboshawa.
Darangwa made the remarks in response to an urgent chamber application filed by Ginimbi’s sisters, Juliet and Nelia, and his father Anderson to reverse the unsigned will.
Darangwa made the remarks in response to an urgent chamber application filed by Ginimbi’s sisters, Juliet and Nelia, and his father Anderson to reverse the unsigned will.
By Desmond Chingarande
The family had sought an interdict to stop Ginimbi’s best friend Nomatter “Kit-Kat” Zinyengere from inheriting one of the deceased’s top-of-the-range vehicles.
The row started when Ginimbi’s family refused to surrender the top-of-the-range Lamborghini vehicle bequeathed to his friend, Kit-Kat.
The Kadungure family wanted Kit-Kat to produce a birth certificate to prove that he was, indeed, the one mentioned in the will.
Darangwa said the family had made a lot of misrepresentations in the urgent application and, as such, the matter should be struck off the roll of urgent cases.
“It is respectfully submitted that this matter is not urgent. The master’s decision accepting the unsigned will was arrived at on November 25, 2020. The applicants were present when the decision was made. It was made with and based on their consent,” she said.
She said the fact that the family took three months to file an urgent chamber application showed that there was no urgency.
Darangwa also said section 8(6) of the Wills Act (Chapter 6:06) gave the applicants the right to appeal against the decision of the master within 30 days, but they chose to do so three months later.
“The applicants have exhibited no urgency whatsoever in their handling of the present matter. They have carelessly abstained from the action. The applicants cannot seek an interdict against the first respondent, barring her from carrying out her duties as an executor. The letters of administration that empower her to remain valid and extant,” Darangwa said.
She said the applicants had failed to disclose material facts that had a bearing on their application, for instance, disclosing to the court that they signed affidavits confirming that they had no objections to the unsigned will.
“So they cannot turn around and claim belatedly that the second respondent erred in accepting it or that they were unduly influenced to accept it,” she said.
Darangwa complained that the Kadungure family members were paying no regard to the fact that the executor had already made significant progress in winding up the estate.NewsDay.
The family had sought an interdict to stop Ginimbi’s best friend Nomatter “Kit-Kat” Zinyengere from inheriting one of the deceased’s top-of-the-range vehicles.
The row started when Ginimbi’s family refused to surrender the top-of-the-range Lamborghini vehicle bequeathed to his friend, Kit-Kat.
 |
| Genius “Ginimbi” Kadungure |
Darangwa said the family had made a lot of misrepresentations in the urgent application and, as such, the matter should be struck off the roll of urgent cases.
“It is respectfully submitted that this matter is not urgent. The master’s decision accepting the unsigned will was arrived at on November 25, 2020. The applicants were present when the decision was made. It was made with and based on their consent,” she said.
She said the fact that the family took three months to file an urgent chamber application showed that there was no urgency.
Darangwa also said section 8(6) of the Wills Act (Chapter 6:06) gave the applicants the right to appeal against the decision of the master within 30 days, but they chose to do so three months later.
“The applicants have exhibited no urgency whatsoever in their handling of the present matter. They have carelessly abstained from the action. The applicants cannot seek an interdict against the first respondent, barring her from carrying out her duties as an executor. The letters of administration that empower her to remain valid and extant,” Darangwa said.
She said the applicants had failed to disclose material facts that had a bearing on their application, for instance, disclosing to the court that they signed affidavits confirming that they had no objections to the unsigned will.
“So they cannot turn around and claim belatedly that the second respondent erred in accepting it or that they were unduly influenced to accept it,” she said.
Darangwa complained that the Kadungure family members were paying no regard to the fact that the executor had already made significant progress in winding up the estate.NewsDay.
