Judgment No. SC 21/2018 Civil Appeal No. SC 89/16 the late Mtize. The amounts on the 3 petty vouchers add up to a total of $Z300 000 000.00 (Three hundred million Zimbabwean dollars). She denied that the first respondent ever managed the property on behalf of the late Mtize as alleged by Mrs Mutize. It is common cause that Mrs Mtize in her first and final distribution account in the estate of her late husband Mtize deliberately left out the disputed property from the inventory. According to Samson’s evidence when he approached Mrs Mtize seeking transfer of the disputed property, she was surprised that the property had not yet been transferred to the first respondent’s name. Upon realising that the property was still registered in her husband’s name she refused to effect transfer and filed a supplementary distribution account in which she included the disputed property in the distribution inventory. The supplementary account was advertised in the newspapers. The first respondent did not object because it did not see the advertisement. In her evidence Mrs Mtize confirmed having deliberately left out the disputed property from the first and final distribution account. She also confirmed having included it in the supplementary account upon realising that it was still registered in her late husband’s name. She explained that she initially left out the property from the initial distribution account because she wanted to investigate whether indeed the first respondent had purchased the disputed property as alleged. 7