Katima Mulilo – Kalumba village on the outskirts of Katima Mulilo was the scene of a bitter inheritance row involving a family house that should be bequeathed to Mavis Muituti.
The beleaguered widow Mavis Muituti was the common-law wife of the late Victor Muituti and according to sources she is legally entitled to inherit the disputed house in Katima Mulilo. But the children of the late teacher Victor Muituti feel the house in Ngweze location should not be bequeathed to their stepmother who did not have any children with their father
The Katima Mulilo Town Council handed ownership documents to the widow as she was responsible for municipal bills at the time her husband was unemployed. Sources close to the drama also indicated at the time Muituti who was a bigamist was on his deathbed Mavis Muituti through her medical aid used to pay for his medical bills.
Recently old furniture belonging to Muituti was offloaded and dumped at his widow’s village, a move that seem to have angered her as she claims to have been denied rights over the property since the passing of her late husband in 2007.
The widow, Mavis Muituti further alleged the move was apparently to free up space for tenants who want to occupy a house left by her husband, in which the furniture was kept and which the widow has also been prevented from occupying.
The widow stated that if indeed her two stepchildren and their uncle, who are implicated in the matter, felt she was entitled to the furniture dumped at her village they should have done so immediately after her husband’s death.
“They all went to my work, the two children of the deceased, telling me that they want to give the furniture that was left in the house to me. Meanwhile these people were fighting over this same property when my husband passed away. I refused and told them they should take it elsewhere. I have information they want to put tenants in the house, now they want to dump old furniture of no value with me,” she said.
According to the widow, she did not want the furniture and other goods brought to her village as the case was still before court adding that after her refusal, a physical altercation with one of her stepchildren almost ensued after she blocked the the truck that wanted to offload the furniture at her village. This prompted the family of the deceased to offload the furniture close to the road adjacent to her village. Muituti’s widow claims she has the rights to her late husband’s estate despite claims by the family that the two were already divorced at the time of his death.
“We married in 1979 even though we separated a few years before his death but we were never divorced. I left our common house and stayed somewhere else because we had problems in our marriage. After he died, his children didn’t want me to have the house, which I personally renovated with my husband. I was even the one paying for his medication and even taking care of him when he was sick. They took the car and everything. I took the matter to court and as I speak the matter is still with the courts,” explained the widow.
She further said she was denied access to the pension money she claims to have invested together with her husband after he left his job questioning how the pension payout was even effected without her authorisation. “I did not even get a cent from the pension invested with Sanlam. They took everything. They used a letter of separation from the Khuta which they got from my documents to authenticate their claims. They worked in cahoots with my husband’s mistress whom they claim is the executor. How can my husband’s mistress be entitled to any claim?” questioned the widow.
Contacted for comment, the deceased’s elder brother Alex Muituti downplayed claims the widow was denied any rights to the estate maintaining that after the death of his brother, the widow herself took the matter to court resulting in delays regarding the distribution of Muituti’s estate to his beneficiaries.
“She was not denied anything. When my brother died she took the case to lawyers. It was then impossible for the properties to be distributed when the case was still with the court. On the 30th of January the case was finalised,” he said.
Muituti stressedthe case was finalised last year and that the possessions that were taken to the widow’s residence was in accordance with the judgement made by the court.
Muituti showed this reporter a letter from the lawyers of the family, supposedly addressed to the lawyers of the widow upon the instruction of the High Court requesting the collection of allocated items, failure of which would result in the items being delivered to the widow’s residence. The deadline for collection of the items was February 4 2012, according to the letter.
Muituti added that the widow, who he maintains was divorced from his brother was given a grace period of five months to bring evidence that indeed she was still married to his brother and therefore entitled to his estate but failed. He accused her of having tried in the past to get her hands on the estate without following proper procedures. “She was given five months to prove herself but she failed. There’s a time she wanted to go and get the same property at the house and even goats at the village left by the deceased when the matter was even still with the court. This matter was also heard in the traditional court where we were advised to call both families but she made a U-turn and took it to court, which prompted the Khuta to give her a fine,” stated Muituti.
According to Muituti his brother had moved on and was married to another woman at the time of his death. It was not clear whether Muituti died without a will.
By George Sanzila