Court gives nod to will at centre of Karuaihe feud

A DRAWN-OUT feud between the surviving siblings of the Karuaihe clan has come to a head – for now, at least.

The High Court has ruled that the disputed will of the family matriarch can be presumed to be genuine, and not forged, as one of the Karuaihe sisters had claimed. One of the Karuaihe sisters, Umbi Karuaihe-Upi, had sued all her surviving siblings, the children and heirs of her deceased brother, the late Judge Fonnie Karuaihe, as well as the Master of the High Court and two lawyers appointed as executors of the will of the Karuaihe matriarch and the late Judge.The ruling was issued by Acting High Court Judge John Manyarara last month.Only two of Karuaihe-Upi’s siblings opposed her bid to have the will of their late mother, Amalia Karuaihe, declared invalid and to have her estate divided equally among her 11 children.They are Paul Johannes Karuaihe and Albertina Katzao, who both inherited substantial parts of the N$2,19 million estate left by their mother when she died in April 1997.Mrs Karuaihe was a successful businesswoman and farmer.Her assets had already been distributed to her heirs – with Paul Karuaihe and a brother who has since died jointly inheriting a farm in the Gobabis area, a house in Klein Windhoek, and business premises in Katutura, while Katzao inherited business premises in Khomasdal – by the time Karuaihe-Upi claimed to have realised, in December 2000, that her mother’s signatures on her last will were not genuine.That will was drawn up in December 1994.The sibling feud turned court fight had a first round played out in the High Court in May 2002, when Director of the National Forensic Science Institute of Namibia, Dr Paul Ludik, told Acting Judge Manyarara that, in his opinion, it was “highly probable” that one of Mrs Karuaihe’s supposed signatures on her eight-page will had been forged.That round in court ended with Ludik being ordered to further examine the will and the signatures.By the time the case returned to court in October last year, Paul Karuaihe and Albertina Katzao had also had a handwriting expert examine the will.That expert, Peter Horley, concluded that Mrs Karuaihe’s signatures were genuine.Horley’s report was admitted as evidence in the case between the siblings, with Karuaihe-Upi’s legal representatives agreeing that they would not dispute Horley’s findings.Last month the case returned to court again, and another of the Karuaihe sisters, Rosalia Karuaihe, completed her testimony in which she claimed that she was constantly with her mother during the time the will was supposedly made.She said it was impossible for her late mother to have signed the document in the presence of the two witnesses who signed the will to confirm that Mrs Karuaihe had signed it in their presence.After Raymond Heathcote, who represented Karuaihe-Upi, had closed his client’s case, his opposing counsel, George Coetzee, asked the Acting Judge to rule that, in the light of the expert evidence and the admission of Horley’s findings, his clients did not need to lead any further evidence to counter claims against them.Acting Judge Manyarara agreed.He stated that he had found Rosalia Karuaihe’s evidence “most unsatisfactory in numerous respects”.He felt that she “patently lacked any reliable recollection of the events to which she purported to testify”.The result, he indicated, was that Karuaihe-Upi had been unable to show that her mother neither signed nor affirmed her signature in the presence of the people whose signatures also appear on the contested will.Suspicion – or even grave suspicion – that formalities had not been complied with was not enough to prove this, he noted.The case might have been dealt with in the High Court, but indications are that it has not laid to rest the feud which has divided the Karuaihe children.Paul Karuaihe has now written to the Master of the High Court to appeal to her to declare that Karuaihe-Upi’s purchase of the Klein Windhoek house that he and his late brother German had inherited and then sold to her, was invalid.He claims that his sister and the executor of his mother’s estate conspired to mislead and deceive him by promising him that he would continue to earn rental income from a part of the house for 13 years after the sale.They had reneged on that promise, he claims.One of the Karuaihe sisters, Umbi Karuaihe-Upi, had sued all her surviving siblings, the children and heirs of her deceased brother, the late Judge Fonnie Karuaihe, as well as the Master of the High Court and two lawyers appointed as executors of the will of the Karuaihe matriarch and the late Judge. The ruling was issued by Acting High Court Judge John Manyarara last month. Only two of Karuaihe-Upi’s siblings opposed her bid to have the will of their late mother, Amalia Karuaihe, declared invalid and to have her estate divided equally among her 11 children. They are Paul Johannes Karuaihe and Albertina Katzao, who both inherited substantial parts of the N$2,19 million estate left by their mother when she died in April 1997. Mrs Karuaihe was a successful businesswoman and farmer. Her assets had already been distributed to her heirs – with Paul Karuaihe and a brother who has since died jointly inheriting a farm in the Gobabis area, a house in Klein Windhoek, and business premises in Katutura, while Katzao inherited business premises in Khomasdal – by the time Karuaihe-Upi claimed to have realised, in December 2000, that her mother’s signatures on her last will were not genuine. That will was drawn up in December 1994. The sibling feud turned court fight had a first round played out in the High Court in May 2002, when Director of the National Forensic Science Institute of Namibia, Dr Paul Ludik, told Acting Judge Manyarara that, in his opinion, it was “highly probable” that one of Mrs Karuaihe’s supposed signatures on her eight-page will had been forged. That round in court ended with Ludik being ordered to further examine the will and the signatures. By the time the case returned to court in October last year, Paul Karuaihe and Albertina Katzao had also had a handwriting expert examine the will. That expert, Peter Horley, concluded that Mrs Karuaihe’s signatures were genuine. Horley’s report was admitted as evidence in the case between the siblings, with Karuaihe-Upi’s legal representatives agreeing that they would not dispute Horley’s findings. Last month the case returned to court again, and another of the Karuaihe sisters, Rosalia Karuaihe, completed her testimony in which she claimed that she was constantly with her mother during the time the will was supposedly made. She said it was impossible for her late mother to have signed the document in the presence of the two witnesses who signed the will to confirm that Mrs Karuaihe had signed it in their presence. After Raymond Heathcote, who represented Karuaihe-Upi, had closed his client’s case, his opposing counsel, George Coetzee, asked the Acting Judge to rule that, in the light of the expert evidence and the admission of Horley’s findings, his clients did not need to lead any further evidence to counter claims against them. Acting Judge Manyarara agreed. He stated that he had found Rosalia Karuaihe’s evidence “most unsatisfactory in numerous respects”. He felt that she “patently lacked any reliable recollection of the events to which she purported to testify”. The result, he indicated, was that Karuaihe-Upi had been unable to show that her mother neither signed nor affirmed her signature in the presence of the people whose signatures also appear on the contested will. Suspicion – or even grave suspicion – that formalities had not been complied with was not enough to prove this, he noted. The case might have been dealt with in the High Court, but indications are that it has not laid to rest the feud which has divided the Karuaihe children. Paul Karuaihe has now written to the Master of the High Court to appeal to her to declare that Karuaihe-Upi’s purchase of the Klein Windhoek house that he and his late brother German had inherited and then sold to her, was invalid. He claims that his sister and the executor of his mother’
s estate conspired to mislead and deceive him by promising him that he would continue to earn rental income from a part of the house for 13 years after the sale. They had reneged on that promise, he claims.