Judgment No. SC 21/2018 Civil Appeal No. SC 89/16 The evidence on record however establishes that she carried out no such investigations. She only decided to claim the property after being approached for transfer and realising that it was still registered in her late husband’s name. It is only then that she started to question the validity of the sale. She alleged without proof that the first respondent was merely administering the property on her late husband’s behalf. She did not know the terms of that arrangement or the commission her husband was paying to the first respondent. She first said Z$325 after contradicting herself under cross-examination she ended up saying that she did not know. Faced with the totality of the evidence placed before her, the learned judge in the court a quo weighed the credibility of witnesses and made material findings of fact: She had this to say: “Looking at the evidence led before the court, I am inclined to find in favour of the plaintiff that there was indeed a sale agreement involving the late Mr Mtize’s property in Gweru between the plaintiff and Mr Mtize. I am convinced because the plaintiff’s witnesses gave their evidence very well and impressed the court as credible witnesses. They were truthful and did not exaggerate their testimonies”. The learned judge in the court a quo’s summation of evidence and analysis of the credibility of witnesses is beyond reproach. The evidence clearly exposes Mrs Mtize as a desperate widow trying to pounce on the delay in effecting transfer to hang onto property which her husband sold during his life time. The late Mtize having validly sold his property during his life time, it cannot form part of his deceased estate. 8