ORDER ALLOWING USE OF TEXT MESSAGES IN ESTATE DISTRIBUTION FEARS OF FRAUD, CHAOS AT MASTER’S OFFICE

MBABANE – The High Court order allowing the use of a text message in the distribution of an estate has sparked controversy, raising fears of fraud and administrative chaos at the Master’s Office.

The order, concerning the estate of the late former EBIS Director, Welile Dlamini, has ignited debate about the future of will-making and the potential erosion of established legal safeguards. Dlamini, who passed away in August 2024, left an estate valued at E2.1 million. 

The court, in a departure from established practice, allowed that WhatsApp messages be used to bequeath some of his assets to his nephew and caregiver, Philakwezwe Khumalo. This decision overturns the initial rejection of the messages by the Master of the High Court.

While the court’s order is binding on the Dlamini family, legal experts and concerned citizens are questioning its broader implications.  The Wills Act of 1955, they argue, sets out clear formalities for will execution to prevent fraud and ensure authenticity.  

A signed will, witnessed by designated individuals, provides a level of security that informal communications like WhatsApp messages simply cannot replicate. “The fear is that this ruling opens the door to widespread fraud and misrepresentation,” one legal expert commented. “People could easily fabricate WhatsApp conversations and expect the Master’s Office to consider them legitimate. This could lead to rightful beneficiaries being disinherited and create immense confusion and chaos.”

Concerns

Concerns also extend to the lack of clear guidelines for the Master’s Office on how to handle such digital evidence. The Electronic Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of electronic evidence, was seemingly not considered in this case. Furthermore, the absence of standardised procedures for verifying the authenticity of WhatsApp messages raises serious questions about the reliability of such evidence.

“Consideration of chats from informal social media platforms effectively renders the Wills Act obsolete,” another legal professional stated.  “If courts are going to bypass established legal frameworks in this manner, then the role of legislators is undermined. The very purpose of the Wills Act was to protect the wishes of the will-maker and prevent disputes.”

The court’s decision has been criticised for potentially disregarding established precedents regarding will construction. Historically, the High and Supreme courts have emphasised the importance of formal will structures to prevent coercion and ensure testamentary capacity.  

Witness

Witness signatures, for example, are crucial for verifying the testator’s state of mind at the time of signing.  These safeguards are absent in informal digital communications. The case highlights the growing tension between adapting to evolving communication technologies and upholding established legal principles. While some argue that the court’s decision reflects the realities of modern communication, others fear it sets a dangerous precedent.

The concern is that this ruling could lead to a flood of contested estates based on unverifiable digital exchanges, ultimately undermining the integrity of the inheritance process. Many are now calling for the Master’s Office to appeal the judgement, seeking clarity and reaffirmation of the Wills Act as the cornerstone of estate administration in Eswatini.

The long-term implications of this ruling remain to be seen, but it has undoubtedly ignited a crucial conversation about the future of wills and the balance between legal formality and technological advancement.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: