Widow Loses Husband’s House
By Dickson Jere
A man purchased a house shortly before he got married. When he married, he opted to live in a rented house while his house was on lease. He used the income from his house to look after his mother and siblings, among others.
Upon his death, the wife claimed the house as part of the late husband’s estate and that she was entitled to it as matrimonial property for the widow. She even started collecting rentals and claimed to have used the same for her upkeep and that of their child.
Her action prompted a court action in the High Court in which her mother and father in law as well as brother in law sued her, arguing that the house was actually bought for them. And that his father even topped up the small balance on the purchase price because it was meant for the family.
The three in-laws produced a letter in which the deceased allegedly wrote giving the same house to his mother before he unexpectedly died in a fatal accident.
The High Court, after hearing both sides, agreed that the property did not meet the threshold of being a matrimonial property. The Judge found that the house was bought before marriage and that the deceased never informed her that the house would be for her and children. So, the Court found, it was rightly given to his mother.
She was dissatisfied with the outcome and took the case up to the Supreme Court. Three Judges heard the case and ruled thus;
“In this case, there is evidence on record that the late Zulu bought the house in dispute for the benefit of his family,” the Judges said.
“It follows, therefore, that the said house does not form part of the estate of the late Zulu and the appellant (widow) is not entitled to it,” the Court ruled.
On the letter, the Court said it did not meet the requirements of being a Will and Last Testament but merely helped in proving that the deceased never wanted the house to be his matrimonial property but his mother, father and siblings.
Since the widow was co-Administrator and evidence showed that she misappropriated rental income, mismanaged the pension, and generally neglected the estate, the Court found it fit to remove her from office.
“Sadly, she never distributed any of the money she had collected, as required by law,” the Court noted with sadness, adding that the failure to do so was illegal.
“We have no doubt that the appellant (widow) collected money without the authority of the co-administrator and used it without distributing some of it to all those entitled under the law,” the Court said.
The Co-Administrator, the young brother of the late, was confirmed as sole administrator after removing the widow from office of administrator.
Case citation – Zulu v Zulu and Others – Appeal No. 218/2012
Two lecture notes.
Firstly, when one gets married to someone who already has property, it does not automatically vest in the family until he says so to his new wife.
And secondly, when you mismanage the estate as administrator, you can be arrested and prosecuted for your deeds. It is illegal not to distribute the estate according to the law.
Lastly, write Wills to avoid this kind of issues in future.