A contested inheritance dispute involving the estate of a Zimbabwean medical doctor who died abroad has escalated into a formal legal battle, drawing in the Master of the High Court and highlighting the complexities of succession, marriage, and trust law in the country.

The matter, filed under Master of the High Court reference number 3445/25, concerns the estate of the late Dr Prudence Manyuchi, a veteran physician who died in India while undergoing specialist medical treatment. Her remains were later repatriated to Zimbabwe for burial.

The dispute has set members of the Manyuchi family against her surviving husband, Leonard Mafukidzwa, with both sides petitioning the Master of the High Court to determine their respective rights and interests in the estate.

According to family members, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, Dr Manyuchi was previously married under Zimbabwe’s Marriages Act [Chapter 5:11] before she became ill. They allege that during this period she sought spiritual guidance from Mafukidzwa, who was then operating as a prophetic healer in an apostolic church.

Family sources claim that Dr Manyuchi later divorced her first husband and that, following the dissolution of that marriage, the former couple placed their Gletwin Park residential property into a trust established solely for the benefit of their children.

The property was reportedly removed from their personal estates, with trustees appointed to administer it.

Relations between the family and Mafukidzwa are said to have deteriorated after Manyuchi allegedly entered into a civil marriage with the prophet. Shortly thereafter, she was reportedly diagnosed with a terminal illness and travelled to India for treatment, accompanied by her new husband.

She later died while receiving care abroad.

The family further alleges that Mafukidzwa returned to Zimbabwe before the repatriation of Dr Manyuchi’s body, and that he was absent during both the burial and memorial service—an issue that has also become a point of contention in the ongoing dispute.

Mafukidzwa, however, has formally asserted his rights as the surviving spouse through his legal representatives, Maposa and Ndomene Legal Practitioners, who have written to the Master of the High Court seeking urgent intervention.

In correspondence dated December 24 and seen by this publication, the law firm claims that their client was unlawfully denied access to the matrimonial home and to his personal belongings following Dr Manyuchi’s death. The lawyers argue that Mafukidzwa should be recognised as a co-executor dative of the estate.

“Our client was locked out of the matrimonial residence, with all his personal effects inaccessible, leaving him in a position of extreme hardship,” the letter states, adding that he is currently without accommodation.

Through his lawyers, Mafukidzwa has requested that the Master convene an urgent meeting of all interested parties and has proposed the appointment of an independent executor to administer the estate pending resolution of the dispute.

At the time of publication, the Master of the High Court had not issued a formal response.

Legal analysts say the case raises complex issues relating to the intersection of matrimonial regimes, trusts established for minor beneficiaries, and the rights of surviving spouses under Zimbabwean succession law.

They note that the outcome could provide important guidance for future estate disputes involving blended families and assets held outside personal ownership structures.