A person dies leaving property behind. Administrators are appointed. Years pass. Then a family member asks:
- What property did the deceased leave?
- What income has the estate received?
- What has been sold?
- Where are the accounts?
- When will the estate finally be distributed?
Can the administrators simply say:
“You are too late to ask these questions”?
That issue arose before the Supreme Court of Zambia in Mutinta and Others (Administratrix of Mazoka) v Lundu Mazoka [2017] ZMSC 267. The case concerned the estate of the late Anderson Kambela Mazoka. Lundu Mazoka, a biological son of the deceased, commenced proceedings seeking, among other things, disclosure of the full extent of the estate, an account of its administration and distribution of the estate according to law. The Administratrices argued that his claim was out of time under provisions governing applications relating to provision under a will.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument. Why? Because there is an important difference between saying:
“I want the Court to alter what the deceased provided in the will.”
and saying:
“I want the people administering the estate to disclose the assets, account for them and administer the estate properly.”
Lundu’s case fell into the second category. The Supreme Court therefore held that the particular six-month statutory bar relied upon by the Administratrices did not apply to his administration claim. This is an important lesson for families dealing with deceased estates. Being appointed an administrator does not mean:
“The deceased’s property is now mine to control as I please.”
Administration carries legal responsibilities. An administrator should be able to account for matters such as:
- property belonging to the estate;
- money received;
- rental income;
- property sold;
- liabilities paid;
- expenses incurred;
- assets remaining;
- distributions made.
Proper accounting protects beneficiaries, but it also protects honest administrators because there is a clear record showing what happened to the estate. The Supreme Court also made an important procedural point. It criticised unnecessary preliminary objections that prevent genuine disputes from being determined on their merits.
The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and sent the matter back to the High Court to be heard on its merits. So the Supreme Court was not deciding in this appeal exactly how the Mazoka estate should ultimately be distributed. It was saying that the administration claim should be allowed to proceed. For families, the practical lesson is powerful:
Administering an estate is not simply controlling family property. It is an accountable legal responsibility.
And where you have a legitimate interest in an estate, asking: –
“What happened to the estate?”
– may be much more than a family question. It may be a legal demand for accountability.
For legal advice on wills, deceased estates, inheritance disputes and estate administration, contact Dzekedzeke and Company.
Based on Mutinta and Others (Administratrix of Mazoka) v Lundu Mazoka (Appeal No. 89 of 2014) [2017] ZMSC 267.
