VICTOR’S WIFE ENTITLED TO CHILD’S SHARE - MASTER

MBABANE – You are entitled to a child’s share! The Master of the High Court has dismissed Princess Lungile Gamedze’s objection where she was challenging a decision of the executor apportioning her only a child’s share of the estate of her late husband, businessman and football administrator Victor Gamedze.

From the estate of her late husband, Lungile wants to be given a half share on top of the child’s share.
In terms of the law governing the distribution of estates, once an objection has been filed by a beneficiary, the executor is called upon to respond to it and after the reply, the Master of the High Court makes a ruling.

In this case, after having considered submissions of both parties, the Master ruled in favour of the executor.
The Master of the High Court found that the responses of the executor were valid and that his decision to allot a child’s share to Lungile was justified by law.

Dismissing

In dismissing the application, the Master stated that the executor did not misdirect himself in apportioning her (Lungile) a child’s share as he (executor) acted within the confines of Section 2(3) of the Intestate Succession Act of 1953 (Act 3 of 1953).

The section provides as follows: “If the spouses were married out of community of property and the deceased spouse leaves any descendent, who is entitled to succeed ab intestate, the surviving spouse shall succeed to the extent of a child’s share.”

The Master of the High Court concurred with the executor that there was no evidence to show that Lungile and her late husband were married through civil rites which could have enabled her to receive both the child’s share and half share.

The executor, in his response, stated that in apportioning her a child’s share, he was guided by the existing piece of legislation.
The only remedy that is now left for Lungile is to approach the High Court. It has been reliably gathered that the princess will soon be filing papers in court where she will be challenging the decision of the Master of the High Court.

This is because she is reportedly not satisfied with the ruling of the Master of the High Court.
In a brief interview yesterday, Princess Lungile said: “Yes, I have received the responses of the Master of the High Court and I am still consulting with my attorney.”

In her objection Lungile contended that with Gamedze, they were married through Civil Rites. 
This was, however, disputed by the executor in his response to her objection.

Marriage

According to the response by the executor, there was no marriage certificate to substantiate that the couple was married through Civil Rites save for the confirmation by her in- laws that she (Lungile) was traditionally wed.
She further argued that with the late Gamedze they were in a universal partnership and that Gamedze was successful because of monies from her entrepreneurship skills and her wealth.

A universal partnership is one that includes all the present and future property of the partners and all burdens or losses which are incurred by either partner or that is exemplified by the community of property between husband and wife under Roman Dutch law or the civil law. 

Lungile avered that Section 2(3) of the Intestate Succession Act of 1953, which the executor employed when apportioning her share from the estate of her late husband, offends against Section 34 of the Constitution.

Section 34 of the Constitution provides that: “A surviving spouse is entitled to a reasonable provision out of the estate of the other spouse whether the spouse died having made a valid will or not and whether the spouses were married by civil or customary rights.”

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: