High Court judge, Justice Owen Tagu has ruled against an appointed executor of the late Edward Nyanyiwa of Eddies Pfugari’s estate, while ordering the statutory five percent charge against the 15 percent earlier charged.
In her argument before the court, Henrietta Nyanyiwa accused the appointed Executor Clive Mandizvidza of being interested in enriching himself at the expense of the rightful beneficiaries.
She also told the court that there was never a proper valuation of the shares held by the deceased in the various companies he had interests in as envisaged by the Estate Duty Act [Chapter 23:03] and that he wrongfully and unreasonably approved an executor’s fee of 15 percent of the estate’s gross assets as opposed to the Statutory 5 percent.
“That the Executor (Mandizvidza) who is more interested in enriching himself at the expense and to the prejudice of the beneficiaries would have failed to perform his duties and must be removed from office,” said Henrietta Nyanyiwa.
Following the death of Edward Nyanyiwa, Mandizvidza was appointed the executor of the estate on March 21, 2019.
This did not go down well with Henrietta Nyanyiwa who on 25 August 20200 wrote two letters of complaint to Master of the High Court.
Mandizvidza filed her responses with the Master of the High Court and Henrietta’s complaints were dismissed for lack of substance prompting her to approach the High Court.
In her High Court application, Henrietta Nyanyiwa sought determination on whether the interim distribution account for Edward Nyanyiwa’s estate should be set aside.
She also sought to have the fees charged by Mandizvidza set aside while she wanted her removed as executor of the late Edward Nyanyiwa’s estate.
In his ruling, High Court judge, Justice Owen Tagu ruled that;
“Her grievances can be summarized as follows, that the value of the late Nyanyiwa’s shareholding in various companies had not been properly determined in that the value of the shares in such companies is naturally affected by the companies’ liabilities and these were not taken into account in coming up with the values that the executor sought to rely on. Further that the second respondent had charged a total of fifteen percent as his fees when such percentage was not due to him. According to the applicant the second respondent’s conduct constituted overcharging and that the account be set aside.”
Justice Tagu further ruled that the questions that arise from the background was that whether there is any legal basis for the Court to interfere with the decision made by the Master of the High Court concerning the valuation of the late Nyanyiwa’s shares in the mentioned companies, whether the fees charged by the first respondent should be set aside and the executor should be removed.
Justice Tagu said Mandizvidza did not dispute that the 15 percent fee was not fair.
Tagu then ordered that the decision to confirm Mandizvidza’s interim liquidation and distribution accounts in the estate of the late Edward Nyanyiwa under DR Number 471/19 be set aside.
“The interim liquidation and distribution accounts filed by the second respondent in the estate of the late Edward Nyanyiwa under DR 471/19 be and are hereby set aside,” he ruled.
He also removed Mandizvidza from being the executor of the estate. He also ordered the executor of that estate to charge 5 percent gross of estate value.
