Mthawanji & Another v Ching'amba & 2 Others (Civil Cause 975 of 1992) [1992] MWHCCiv 4 (8 September 1992)

/ , , IN THE IILGll COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO. 975 OF 1992 , , BETWEEN: ,, ; 1 • i d J. L. MTH/\WANJT - and - R. MTHAW/\NJ I (MALE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1ST PLAINTIFF (FEMALE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2ND PLAINTIFF (EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WTLL OF R. S. MTHAWANJI (DECEASED)) (FEMALE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1ST DEFENDANT J. CHINC'/\M BA - and - MALAWI HOTELS LIMITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 2ND DEFENDANT - ;:ind - CIII LEMBA (MALE) . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 3RD DEFENDANT CORAM: MWAUNGULU, REGISTRAR For th e Plaintiffs, Nkhono For the Defendants, Ch.igw:imnjira R U L I N G Yesterday, the 7th of September, 1992, I heard an appl i cat lo n by J. L. Mthmv;:inji cind R. Mthawanji suing as Execu tors c1 nd Executrix resp<'ctivC'ly of the Estate of Ralph The c1pplication is opposed by Miss J. Stephen Mthawanji. Ching 'amba, first defendant, M:ilnwi Hotels Limited, the second defendant, and Mr. Chi lemba, the third defendant. The application wa~ m;:ide under Order 113 of the Rules of the Supre me Cou rt. After ] istenlng to ;:irgument and examining affida vits in support of the Application, the application is refused. Th e Executors and r::x.ecutrix ;ire appointed by the Will of R,1 lph Ste phen Mthawc1n_ji of the> 4th of April, 1992. Mr. Nkhono, appearing for the Executors, concedes that Probate is in Lhe process of obtaining it hc1s not been grc1nted. from this Co urt. He The> WLl 1, e xhihi I rd i 11 a pp 1 i c ;:i t i on , s t a t es i n p ,1 r .· 1 r, 1 n p h 1 · I. he :d -f i rl.1vLt in supporl of the " J_~_!10~ NT my wi 10, 2(l?.2 , Rla ntyr e MTIIA~ANJI of P. O. Rrp uhl Le of Mala1v i .1ncl t n be Exes::utor s l\t 1 l' II S YI. VI!\ MTH AWANJI of P. O. Box .1fnrr, r. :1i d a,1rl my brother JOSJA LESLIE s;:iid (l ,r,-e in .1fter called "m y Tn1stees") ·1, 11s tee •: nf this my Will ... " l 'i'i l, Lilongwe the l\n ,: in Toucl1in g act i n n , r ;:i r.-1 graph 2 of th 0 1 . J i 1 1 s t : 1 1- 0 s : the property, tli •· s ub j 1' ct of contention in this " J_~-JN two pr emisr s "'' Chi lrkn RoAcl, Ch<1th<1 Village, T. A. M.1chinjili, Bl .- 1 11tv re :1fnr0s;i id rind I g;iv0 clevise ;i n d he ci u ea th t 110 p 1-, , m i s es 11 r c ,. 0 n t l y o c cup i e cl h y ~-~ /\ N 30755, Cldchiri, n f S ILOS HI Anl- yre 3 to my the othc>r ;incl A f orcsn i rl rnnth0 r VIRGINIA ~ION I CA MTH ,1\ W/\NJ I ." P. 11. to h0r CHING'AM B/\ Box Jr .1 n Si 1 os Chin g ' :11111, .-1 o cc1 11 1 i r•~ one of the ~1th ,1 1:.111ji, The "t h or 1~remise s menf ion ,, cl to VirgL n n Monica Inst r ad, Miss Ching'n 111h,1 Limited , the seco nd def011d :1 r1t who , :in employee. def e11da nt- , poSS ''SSi <1 n of this pr rm i c:r' s out the pu,rose s of tho Tc ,,1 .-11o r. I rr T l Ii ,. Su r111nn n s Llir' tl 1° hm1se r1-0 mis0s. in f h0 lHll h;:is not been gLven clecec1sed's mother. to Mc1l;iwi Hotels in tur n, hou sed Lhc third j_ n t ended t n obli, i_ n the Executors cc1rry r 11.1hl c t o j_ s r n 1-lie Th 0 first v ehe111P 11tlv h .1ve no ri ght the plnint if1 s ,1 prlication i <: on behalf of is orposed . the clefencl;:rnt, cont r ndE'rl, sue hcf n re gra n t of rrohc1te. Exec1 1 tor r.: the po h1 e rs of this, Against ,1nd not grant of Probr1t e . Exec1 1 tor s cleri ve from Cons r qu0ntl y , Executor s the estc1te. Further, it is argued, for t h n fi i-c:t rl"fendAnt, th ,1t she h;1s l'l·emi •;pc; hccause she hnu g ht the acquired sC1me title t n land, built a hedge ro1mcl i t and s1 qwrvise d the erection of the Rctu;1l buil ding. int r nn0,l<lle with cirguP \✓ i 11 th;it thAt 111 : 1 v I 1i ,, t h r It On th0 1 ast gr olll1<I, 2nd J'laintiffs invited rnr the n ffi <L1vits, in my np in i,111, a ss 111ni11g lc1nd, sh e h:is the bought woul d, the ref o re, b e nn Cons rrp._10 11t l v, this wnulrl n, , , h e a rn :1nri<' r of Orel er 11 ·; in tl 1 e the ·1°st :1t~o1- cl early st n l c": occu riecl by that cons r n t · 1 l I hoU /',h C: n 1msel for the 1st cind t h e eviclonce in Ir, cast do11ht on t h e f irst clcfendc1nt She ln her own right. summ.1r v order :1 11rrorr i .1te. Mn1-eov0 1- , t✓ i l 1 thrit the rrr mi ses is ,1ssum0d the ,,-, ,u ld 1'0 i ,, th r If . 1 s ,, 11 l' c s t · it o 1 • fir s t def crnh11t 1 i c en c e o f c .111 he properl y the r1-em isc>s 1-iith Th c Tc s t ;i t n 1- ·~n111 e r I) ,, pr 0 111i S"" the 1 st dcfr11 1I , ,,, r· ,1s r where cl int err st i n the Lind. i s .1 th 0 ·in rl t h - 3 - in in title, r he , loos0 understr1nding of the predece s sor worc l, tn the Executors of t 11 ° Wi 1 1. My own unclerst :inding of r I n c ~du· r r w n 1 il cl not be 0 rd r r l n t h 0 if t lie o cc 11pi C'rs of the premises c1re faV< ' llr nf :in c1pplicant ;:irpl icant 's on b y • predece ssor s in title. premises cons ent I n v o k e cl th a t the thC' I li0 1 1 3 of i s i s Mor e l irw 0 ver, irnportantlv, i n t e r rn r d cl 1 r' i s gr a n t 0 cl . tp the F xC'c 111 r, s. Mr. Nkhono hns ;:ir/;IIC'cl c , i - m f' d d I r w I t h thrit Proh;-itC' hns not t lrnt been g,-:intr-d Ex e c 1 1 t o 1 s c ;-i n c s t :i t e e v c n I n m v op i n Lon , w h t1 e Co 1 1 r t s h A v e be f c~ re I' r oh n t e ,1 rnntter of t hls right for 1;: x rc cut nrs, Co urts, c1s rec0gni se d praclicC' and principl C', h nvr ref 11srcl relief hefore grant of is ~f:_:y.1ppa Che_~_!:l~s- Surra Proh7te. c1 decision of the AC Mani ~~het_Li (1916) Jucli 1·iril CClmrni_ttee of thC' from c1n 8ppr,1l from Lord Park er, hc 11v eve r, rr 1 i. ed on Thomr ~?~~s Sing 7 po re. Reyn o ld s 3 C & P 123 :incl .,i~o lley -vs - Clark 5 B & Ald. 744. The princip le to guid e the Cc1t1rt s is found at page 608: (101. l'1ivy Co un c il The startin g p n inl Thi s w,1s l h e t o to anrf n nt The living, 1 , p he J d . J"f'r c;r) 1nl thrit thjs ri ght t h e of his T rs t- :ir r)1 co nclusion I t from 11ropr1-ty of th:it i s qui.. t e c J r ct r i s t lw TestAtor woul (l, institute, 1v ith n 1JI de c idin g, 1-·li ich s11it n h:ivC' com 0 h r to he " Assumi ng, but i.f he to be a clC' Pmccl their w0re this L0r dships have c on t en t i on ca n n o 1- th ct t an Execut or deri v0s his ti tlP nnd authority from the ;:iny p,r;int of Wi 11 Pr n bctf e. the T0stc1lnr, in c luding all ri r, hl s of- act i.on, vests in him 11pon the r- he consr-riue n ce is thc1r- hc c;-in Tcc;tc1tor 's death, in c; ti I ute an c h;:iracter of Fxecutor i n lie> cannot, jt is tn1e, b0forr he prove s I-Jill. is not a decre e' obtain bc r- auc;e his titl r ck1w11ds on Probate, but bec;iuse the prndu c Uon of Pr 0b;-it r i ~ th 0 only way jn whi.ch, by the r\lles of the Co11rl, h 0 is :c1l l n1,,ed to prove his title th0ref orc, solel v a cl 111 l n i s t rat or b cf ore he gets in c; t i_t- u t e an act i n 11 hi e; grant. The lriw nn the point is well settlrd: see Co my n's Digest, "Ad111i11i ~ trkt · ion." B.9 and 10; Thompson v. Reynolds ( 1) ; ;:ict i 0t1 th 0 h r fn,- e r'roh:it-e, but --~}_ark { 2)" under his cannot, r, r-7nt, !:J~<' I___!__ <'~ this ;:iw l the ;:ind ,1 ,. Tlw jlldgment of th0 Coun c il 1vas Ac cepted hy Inga] l ~- Mor.an JusU ce Coddard said: (194ll) 1 . J11clici.1l C'nrnmittee of t h " En gU sh Court of thC' Pdvy j n /\ r11~ea l /\ t pag e 10 7. , Lord /\1 l ER, 97. "T l err' rerson l 0 .7ves the lrir ter c;7n instit1 1t0 ·1c I i.on s hr fnre obt;-iining Prnhnt0, I lia t, whr ,-e I l1 n rei11 nn111ps clecec1s0d [In Executnr, is no ,1 Will cl rn,ht n11d a - 4 -- t his is, no do1 d,1 , thnt the Executor's thour,h the action 111 . 1 , · be stnyrd untll the Prob;cite is gnrnted: Tarn v. Co1m•ll'1 cial Il::in kl ng Co. 4. Thr reAson for i.s dcri.ved from th o Wi ' 1, which ()rerc1 tes from the den th o f t o r ,- o v e the · 1 I 1 h c h ri c; t he Te s tat or , n n r l th nt the Will whi.ch nnmes him Will, that is, to r i " ' P as Ex ecutor is the flC" has r·r()uires him tn r erfPc~ tit- le to sue h11t c1 the acti.on to rro cee d tit le and wi11 hi s till this has !wen , 1, ,,1 e. Thr nction will hr st,"lyed, but not dismissed. ' , 1 ::idminist ,-ntor is in a different p os it i.on." I 1 ·· t Wi 11 of the deceased. ,i, ., Co11rt 1111 t allow to do i s t Ltle In p ,, Crowhurst v. Pnrk - --- Goulding sriid: - ( I 'l 74) l J\11 ER 991., 999, Justice i.s I h;it have h01-e, the ;:is S" " " e st rd i 1• 11 p lic.1hl o where, " Counsel j11ri. s pn1dence clrferidant is willin r- th e Testator's 11r,- ;; ,»· il e c; tat r th e rroduction or P1 1 1, , t e. a correc t view. r,r n crclural p r o t r c t i on : 1 1 1 Testn tor's persrn1 nl ExP c11tor: in footnotes at Reynolds__: f nrcgo i ng the 1 • 1 ad mit !he Executor's title to and does not require Tn my _j11dgmPnt thnt is not the the 1- h e clc1ims agninst his the hi stor i c::-il connncti.on the report of Th~mrson v. I requi1-r111 ,,, 1 of o f , · 1 , 0 m .1 y •· s tat e I lia t (' I I I of i_n~d st- s on f or i n I hink thr court it ·~ own moti.on i n t e r e s t s l 1.1 v e see the 0 1- i_s granted b y What f undrrsta nd from tlv · ·, dee i si n11s is thnt the r'ower to inte 1 meddle or meddle tvi th 'l,r:> e st- af· p o[ the Testat c11- before Prob :, r-e is distinct from seeking reli ( f th e Lit Ler case, Cotn- ts wlll l s ref uc· ~ t o perf r•c tecl. This is achir , -,,, 1 by gnrnl· of Probc1te. This is conf ir med hy our section ~: the WiJJs c1nd In he 1 i. t c1 n c e Ac t . i 7 and L1fJ(2 ) of f he F'. x e c i 1 t or ' s p, r a n t re 1 i e f the Court. t o 1.-~ n cl r: ourt t i t 1 e from t i l I th , 1, , i r; t· hlng Tlw w'.i, s er t he action. till Prohntr In sn far as th0 f'll 'l I i c ants in thls cr1se wm1t · n~l i ef from Chis Court before gr.11 ,r o f rroh .11· c, this Court will not the ente 1 t· ain proc r' 0 dings sc1id, howe ,· 0r, the 1st defend nnt, if she r n id for the rl ot, would be e n titled to sotne ShP would be r·onv ers p ] y. she is on the rrcmi ses ther r' by tl , r cnns 0' nt of the rxec 1 11· <,r s' prcrl rc essor in tj tl r . This In woul rl no t he the case tvhr, 0 t h <>re the f n rm 0 r case there is :,n inn ne t c, gi.ve clir0ctin11 s 11nder is rw gr :1nt of Probate. i. L f cou ld lntter cAse, In 2 ,~ , Rules 4 Orde 1 r)rde1- 11 1 would be invo krcl . i ssur tn he trird. Si n r-0 in b rr own right. in the estate. gr.1nt r rl. intP i-r's l anrl ~ - h ,1vc s1-.1y th 0 to is As i s I I the Summons. dismiss the proceedings to enAbl e grar;~ of .h<'.1ve gra ntee!, The jdefenclants proceed on caveats th e application ;l or grant . sit uation raised by their affidavits. the c1pp l icant s might the Summons. to ,,, right course Proba t'e. If to c !ri sider is to sta Probate i wheth er t have view MADE i. n Chambers this 8th day of S~ptemher, 1992, at Bla ntyr e . ~ ~ ~ I ---------['. ___ ti ~ I / ( ,, D. f. r-::;1"1 ungui u REGISTRAR OF//rH~ HIGH COURT - - lA , / ' I / t,