Makumba Mweshi v Mweshi (Appeal 12 of 2016) [2018] ZMSC 352 (31 December 2018)

IN Ta. E SC'l'REME COUR'I FOR ZAMBIA APPEAL NO. 1 2 OF 2016 HOLDEN AT NDOLA [Civil Jurhdktion) 131:lTWEEN: M. AKUMBA MWESHI Al'PE!iLANl' DONALD MWESR1 RESl'ONDElNT Coram Mwan1Ut1wambwa OCJ, Malila and Mutuna, JJS ou 2•• October 2018 and · Dec.,mb•r 20J8 For the Appellant Jn Person ,or the:- Respondent Jo Person JUDGMENT - Mutuna JS d clivPted the judgmtnt of the Court. ~1 a tute referred to: I) lnteatato Su.cc~1aioo Act, C"J> 49 Case rcfl"rre.d t.o; ) ) Wjbon Masau$o Zulu v Avondale Hou•ing Project Limited I 198 21 ZR Introduction I) 1'he Appellant in this mah:er ,~ aggrieved a( the dl"eision uf the l,ei\rncd 1 ligh CrJlll't ,J udg,:, dismissulg his applic.:11 tiun Jbr an ordt!r or possession uf plot 11u1nbrr 1',l Mllkwll.i Rout. I , Kit,vc, ,c1, property tilrming p11rt o f thl" t•srate of hill kllc father, Beb()nest M\VC$hi llhe dCC'l'iu,ed}. '2) Ry tbc ac t1011 lodged 1n the CoL~rt bclo\~\ Lb\' Appellant cinitned before the Learned High Court Judge that d~$pite beir1~ a bcnel'il:ir1r1 t o l'h~ dc:ccf1scd's Pstatc h e bad not benefittecl fro1n U1t: dl:ltribution of the estate. 3) T+ic Court rl'jt•t'tecl thl' i\ ppe1la n1'1,; cla im i 1ntl lound as t, ftlct that ht· hnd beneJ1tted from lb( esta te because one of the properties forn1ing port o l' 'the deceasl!d's estate was given to him by tlu{ ndrrtini::ilralorll or the cstntc i.s h i.s shar e 1n 1hc cst11te . l) Thiir. a ppeal. thcr~forc, que stions thi1! fin cling of !'o,·t IJy the L<·urned Higb c,,urt Judge. Background 5) The cleceast:d ,vas in a polygarrious niar:riage w itb three wivt!s. in which he fa thered sevf'ral children. Whtl$t in this pvlygamous 1n'lniagc, lit: also had o ffa irs with nl'.her wo1nen, one of wh u1n was t. Jie Appellants tuother. with whom he fa'tllert!d children with the n et result that in his maniagc and outside niarriage he- had a total of ti.venty <:h.ildren , the l\ppeilant ueing one su<'h t·hild. Ii) 1'bc decea$ed passed ,1\vay in 11'eb1"Uary 200'..! following ,vhich ihe Respondent, one Charles Mwcshi and one M\velwa M,veshi wtrc nppoin te:d co· admir,istrators. 'Ille esta te of tbc deceased co1npri-Srsd various re,d r-u1d 1nov1-l hlc; properlies. \Vh ich the r~espondent n.od the other co-administrators distributed n rnong the th rei> 1.vidow1-. and childn:n of Hit> ·~ Rc~:,pondent arid other 11~1;Jcctcd to dis1 ribute any prorc·rr_v l(l hlln . Aii. 1,if consrqu.-nc;e of this. be l'orru n~nced tht nt-uon io the Court betow. 'l'be Appc,llunt's claim i n the High Coun: and the Respondeµt's defence R) Tlic- action iri {he 1-Tigh Court ,~.:,~ \)\ Wtl\· nl nriginating ·s ummon s supparh~i.:l hy ,in 11ffidnvi1 v u r11uant to t he Intestate Succession Act, iri w'hlt:li !bl! Appellant claiin~d pC>!(Sexidnn ot' p lur n11mbc,r i 9 Mu.kvvai Road. K\vnr•h., To\v11sh1p. Kilw" Jtc rontc.nded tbc1L a:s u bo:::nt:fil't1Jrv unl.lt-r • the est.alt> Clf the deceased, who h.id not been ron&ldcred in lhe distribution of the ei<Lol!' C1f tllL!' dcoeni;c:d. he ,vas en1itJed 10 1hc :,aid propc-rT. V, whit·h fanned pan of the es·tutc nftht• dl·ce11t1t:'d . J; 9) '['hf' Respoocle>nt,; re$pons1.: 10 the Appellants t·lairn was tha t he and the 01.he1· achninistraton, !18d eonsiclctcd l•he l\ppcllanl i11 the distribution llf 1 .. he estate of 1he d eCCllsetl by giving hin1 house 111.1111ber 1177 Bt1l an gilllo 'T'o,vnship, Kirwe 1-n April 2008. That rhe Appellant had :;ince beer, collecting rent from 1he isaid property which wt!re curr·,•ted towards hls t·d uca t.ional needs un Lil Si:ptember 2013 ,vhen hi:' ~old the preperry for the :slim of K62,0l10.00. Consideration by the Learned High Court Judge and decision I 0) Aft,:r considering the tlllidtlnce, tbc Learned I ligh Court Judge found that the distr1burinn of the cs1 ace of the decea sed h.10 been the ,;ubject or litigation at I he Kihvt" High Cnurt. As a consequence of this. l,he District Rt~istn:u· h .. 1<!. mter n/tn, ordered 11,,11 r~n of 1hr ~rlll"ml properti1·~ that fonnt!.<l p&in of the e::slEle tlf the dec.;eased shoukl he adtninls te red ln accorclaprc ,vith th<' Intestate succession Act by cll ht!r selling lht'!'.m or tli1.1ribuling T.heru JU the ben11ficiark,s being tJ,e twenty c11ildre11 and othc-r dependants. I 11 The pn.lp..-rty numbcrt'd houu nuntb t-1 1177 Bulangilllo, KJtwe was one of J\le said propl•rues which r.rie Court fou1~J, 111 agreeing \Vitti l'lie Respondent had been givc.r1 to the AppeUant as his $llt:1J'C 1n thr t?State. Tbr t,ea, ned H11(h Coun ,Judge. d t<'l ined to aocept I he . Appc1I11nt'e conte,111011 tha t he h ad not been_ c onsid er<"ct In the distriliul..ion of the estate and a cce pted tire Responctrnt's tividencr th.-1 1111 l\ppeUant b,1d infact bee n rrceiving rc-111 frorn the -said prop~~r, y ' 1U1d tht'lt ht' was a,v, u e til11 1 i i was ue-ln~ t<<lld ip 2013 b~r .. ,u~e h>c informed tht: Hes pond ... n1 of tht> sdle. L:.r) Tn conc l \1s(o n H1e Lro1r11t'rl IJtgh C:1111f1 .h.1rJ,g,.. found thtil the Appc:llant dcl.lberaiely co ncea led , he fact that he- had bC'11Cfitte-d trom the- C"'ill•'1c uf I he dcccnsed bv \vav of house 11u111 b<'r 1177 • • Ou. Ja11gfli10 K1l"'-e. Sht! occor cUngly dil;;Uli~ct;J h.1.s claln1. Grounds of .appeal to this Court and arguments by the parties 13 ) 'l'he Appclh:1nl is aggrit:vt:d with tht.' lindini;;s b}' the Lt!am~d I !igh Co urt Judg1· ftnr.1 ha s lou 11,•l1r:d th.is nppea t on tilt-cc gmundis all rollnws: 13. i T h e OouM erred in '1aw anCI f •Ac t when i t ili6't11i•s •d the appUca tJoa ro,. possess·lon ,nf the v11cant plot o;o . Mu.k:wai road l(wu c ha, Ritwe1 whlQI\ prop erty form~ po.rt or the esrnte nr U,9 11,te Bebo110A1 &JwesbJ t,;. biolol(.tol.l f~ tb~r.; I 8.2 Ttie c,mrt. l>elow ilned In law and bet •hon It dism.i9•~-cl his appUc ntlon for poaae .. ton of the plot on Mukwai roo.d Kitwe in accordance wtt.h 11ection S of the.. In,tcst'4 te Su.cce-s&lo-o A«i 1 3.3 'l'hc Collrt erred by dlsro1,$Ull: his nppllcntiog withoot bavin,g r~gard to the irrep~ta.ble injury U1c decision iTI igJ,t ~ illUC , 14) In 11r1iculaun g 1he ground or a ppea l thl" i\ppctlJ011 1 rttlir:cl ctn lht' heads of ari:tun1enl!» in wh ich he ,vas L"SR~tially tf'Sl>Hing th~ con tentions. 111.: mad~ 1rt lhe· 1 ligh Cn~,rt that h<: hnc1 not b een !'onsidc rccl ln tht' distnlJution i>r the cs1ate of the deceased. Hr UJ gll<"d furthl'J Lhat house nt1tnb<csr l 177 811.1h1ngililo Ki1we: devo1v,~d to him fro1n the estotr oj 1he late Saxnuel Sinyangwt• IS) Thi! Avpellant. wafi esRcnti11 1ly contcndiJ1g that thr fnt I J,l l6) fn his argurncn ts in n;sponse. the Respondent took ihe position that the Learned High Co1.1r1 Judge's fihdings were 011 fi rm groliuld i n view t11' th1: evidence led. Consideration by this Court and decision 17) Having considered tlu• reco rd of ar,pcal and lhe aq,,Tt1men t,s by the parl'ie!:l, the issue th&t falls for determination is: did the Lea.med High Cotu1 Judge misdirect hei:-sclf when she found that the ,'\ppcl1anl benefitted from the dis1tibu(io n of rhi: esta te nf th~ deceased by ,11ay of the 13Ulangililo property whic h she fo1Jnc:I devolved lo bun? II is also importa111 for us to ri:state that uiaJ Courl,s are t.he 1nas tcr~ ,1f evide.n<:e and as such , fin~ings or fact will only be reversed by an a ppellate Co1Jt l if they- atlail"I rhc threshold we res rated in the r.ast: of Wilson Masau.so Zulu. v Avondale Hou.sing Ill' Project Limitedl. ThC" 1 hreshold is that lhC' fin.ding rnust be $UCh 1hc1I 1l is not supported bv the evn.lence or it is peTVerse. Il3j A revie1v of the evidenc.e on record, in particular the /\ppeUant's evidence, rcvca.ls that he conflrt11ed that he h~d been rccclving renta l ror the Bulongili.lo property and - that later he arranged to St'll the property w'ilh his aunt. Prior to selling ii he jnfonncd the adn1inistrators, one of tvho111 1uld hiin tha! he \Vas at liberty to sell the • property. 19J The evidence revealed ftuthcr that the Appellant, in ronjunction with his aunt, sold the propt'Tly 10 ont' Collins Kubaghe for the sum of K63.500.00. Howev~r, ii would appear l'h.tt th e aw1 t received all the proceeds of sale and fuilcd t ,1 acrau n1' Lo thi:- Appellant as she disappca1'Cd This is ·what 11! has dbsl{rurlt lcd lhe /\ppeJlant find prompted J1in1 to ':il"<:"k ~•JlOll)l"r property froul !ht r<•!spondcnt. \\1e aannor s.t all fault , ht" L<!ru-n 'd High Court Judge !I fit1din1'S in vit:\v of the fornsoing f'Vidence. Conclusion 2 1) /\s a co nM:q\Jence of \vh o 1 we· h.nve said in I hr> prcct>t.ling paragraphs ,11e fUld 11C'I merit whatsoever in the App•':il 1.1nd we dismiss ti \Vllh costs, in both thi~ 1111d lhc Court be1ow. 'l'h<::8<' costs ..ire to co1npd:!;e 1he disburseinertt» u·ic·u rred by the Respc>ndcn t in de fending the: n1:1ion because be • w·us not represented by couni:el ;..uitl t hey are to be ta.'<t:d in c:lcfa.1..llt of agrccmen1. --~ ~ - p ~ - • - -~ : •: - ... . I I I --....;:;;?.~ ~ ..... ,fft. S r MWA!lrAMWAM. BWA DEPUTY CHIEF' J OSTIC& · ······· ~· · ··· · ····· · ········· •••••~4"•••··- l!l, . M. ALILA SUPREME COURT Jl.lDOE · · ·· J ,, ,