Six Mutare Adult Children Lose Bid To Evict Stepmother From Father’s House
There is no matrimonial property in death, only on estate – High Court
By Fanuel Viriri
Six Mutare adult children who tried to evict their stepmother from a house registered in their father’s name – arguing she was not formally married but merely a “girlfriend” to their late father – have lost their High Court bid to chase her out.
The High Court of Zimbabwe sitting in Mutare on 14 October 2026 dismissed the application by Ernest Marekera, Tendai Pswatai (nee Marekera), Tapuwa Makandwa (nee Marekera), Janet Mutsamwa (nee Marekera), Nyasha Tichawangana (nee Marekera) and Munyaradzi Marekera against stepmother Eddah Rupapa.
The six siblings, all children of the late Elliot Marekera and his late wife Natsayi Marekera, wanted the court to declare that house number *** Simon Mazorodze, Yeovil, Mutare is not Rupapa’s matrimonial home for inheritance purposes.
Elliot Marekera married Natsayi in 1973. In 1984, during that marriage, he bought stand number *** Umtali Township, Yeovil. The house was registered in his name only.
Natsayi died in 2006. Her estate was never registered.
Elliot died on 19 May 2024. At the time of his death, Eddah Rupapa was living in the Yeovil house.
The children say she moved in as a girlfriend in 2014. Rupapa says they lived as husband and wife from 2008 and that Elliot paid roora/lobola in 2012. She produced a roora list, letters from the Village Head and Chief Mutasa, affidavits from her brother, mother and the marriage go-between Crispen Mazhakata, and a NSSA life certificate where Elliot listed her as his wife. She also reported Tendai Pswatai (Marekera) to police for saying Elliot died a widower on his death certificate.
The executor, Clever Mandizvidza, had awarded the Yeovil house to Rupapa under the law that gives a surviving spouse ownership of the house she lived in at death. The children were aggrieved. They told the court their late mother toiled to develop the house, renovated it, built cottages, planted trees. The house has sentimental value and is sacred to them.
They further argued that Rupapa contributed nothing to the acquisition of the property, is living there with her own children whose father is not the deceased – she had no child with Elliot – and is pocketing rentals from the cottages while not paying council rates. The rates bill now stands at US$600. The house is dilapidated. If she inherits it, they fear, it will devolve to her children and to strangers.
The children relied on two previous High Court decisions, Chimhowa v Chimhowa (2011) and Makwara v Makwara (2018), where judges had said it creates an absurdity to give a house to a later spouse who did not contribute to its purchase. They argued the house is not her “matrimonial property.”
Rupapa’s lawyer argued she would be rendered homeless after 18 years in the house and that the law was meant to protect surviving spouses.
Justice Sijabuliso Siziba dismissed the application with costs.
He held that the provisions of Section 68F(2)(d)(i) of the Administration of Estates Act and Section 3A(a) of the Deceased Estates Succession Act are clear in their literal meaning. They give ownership of the house where the spouse lived at the time of death to the surviving spouse. They do not discriminate on whether the spouse was married to the deceased when the house was bought.
“If the legislature had intended to discriminate between different categories of surviving spouses on the basis of any criteria, it would have expressly done so. It did not. This court cannot do it,” Justice Siziba said.
On marriage, the judge found there was ample proof of a customary marriage through payment of roora/lobola, which under Hosho v Hasisi is proof of marriage. Under Section 68(3) of the Administration of Estates Act, an unregistered customary union is valid for inheritance.
The judge said the children’s argument was based on a misinterpretation of property rights. In Zimbabwe all marriages after 1929 are out of community of property. The house was registered in Elliot’s name only. The late first wife had no title to pass on. There is no such thing as “matrimonial property” at death, only an estate. And inheritance is not based on contribution.
He said adult children’s remedy was a will. Elliot could have willed the house to them. He did not. For minor children and dependants, the law provides protection under the Deceased Persons Family Maintenance Act and Section 90 of the Administration of Estates Act, which stops a widower or widow from remarrying until minors’ inheritance is secured.
Sentimental value, the judge added, under Section 4 of the Deceased Estates Succession Act applies to household goods, not to a house.
“The application is hereby dismissed for lack of merit,” Siziba ruled. The six siblings will jointly bear Rupapa’s costs.
#family #relationships