DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 42/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 84/13 the Wills Act [Chapter 6:06], whereas the appropriate law to be used instead was the African Wills Act [Chapter 240] because the Wills Act applied to wills made after 1 January 1988 while the will in contention had been executed on 9 December 1977. Since the Supreme Court had not made a finding on whether or not the appellant had been removed as executor, the second respondent went on to appoint an independent person as executor who is the third respondent who was issued with letters of administration as executor dative on 19 April 2005. The second respondent also appointed the first respondent as the surviving spouse of the late Amos Chirunda. That appointment was challenged before a magistrate’s court. The magistrate found that the first respondent had been properly appointed as surviving spouse. That decision was appealed against by the appellant before the High Court which court found that the magistrate had made its finding on the basis of the wrong law but declined to state in definitive terms whether or not the first respondent was the surviving spouse although it expressed its reservations on the power of the second respondent to make a ruling on whether or not one is a surviving spouse. The appellant then made an application in the court a quo where she sought that the court make a determination of whether or not the will of the late Amos Chirunda was valid. That question arose because the appellant was of the view that her appointment in the first place as executor had been done properly as per the will of the late Amos Chirunda and someone else being put in her place was contrary to the will of the late Amos Chirunda. Appellant’s view therefore was that a determination on the validity of the will would clarify 4