A grandson’s battle for justice — A property, a golden gift, love, betrayal and the law

In a case that reads like a Shakespearean family drama, the High Court recently delivered a judgment that left both applicant and respondent reflecting on the fragile bonds of family and the enduring weight of gratitude.

Presided over by Justice Fatima Maxwell, the case involving Leonard Mupini on one side and his grandson Nathaniel Tafadzwa Mupini and the Registrar of Deeds on the other side centred on a poignant question:

Can love and kindness in the form of a donation be rescinded when it is seemingly met with ingratitude?

The applicant, Mupini, a man who has lived through decades of life’s trials, took to the courtroom to seek the revocation of a donation he made to his grandson, Nathaniel.

The property in question, a stand in Malbereign, was given to Nathaniel in 2023 as a gesture of love and benevolence. The transfer was sealed with a deed of transfer, leaving Mupini with what he believed was a lifetime right to occupy the property—a usufruct he hoped would allow him peace in his twilight years.

But peace, it seems, was a fleeting dream. In an emotional plea, Mupini recounted the series of events that drove him to revoke the donation.

A stroke in 2024 left him vulnerable, both physically and emotionally.

He claims his grandson, instead of showing care, allowed discord to reign.

Eviction proceedings were allegedly initiated against Mupini’s wife and minor children and he described a visit to his hospital bed where Nathaniel, rather than offering solace, allegedly pestered him about legal matters.

To Mupini, these actions were an “ingratitude of the highest magnitude,” laced with malice and disregard for the love that had prompted the gift.

“I gave out of love. I trusted him. But I am now tormented in ways I never imagined,” he told the court through his affidavit. His words paint a picture of betrayal, a grandfather pleading for dignity and respect in the face of what he believes to be gross ingratitude.

The grandson, Nathaniel, stood firm in his defence.

Represented by his legal team, Nathaniel denied all allegations, asserting that he acted lawfully and with goodwill.He claimed he never interfered with his grandfather’s rights to occupy the property and refuted allegations of emotional or psychological harm.

“It is a sad day that you chose to grandstand and attack our client on baseless allegations that do not have any shred of evidence whatsoever,” his lawyers wrote. Nathaniel maintained that he had even contributed to his grandfather’s medical bills, a sign of his continued care and support.

Justice Maxwell, charged with unravelling this complex web of family discord, approached the matter with meticulous care.

The law, as presented in the case, is clear. While donations are generally irrevocable, exceptions exist where the recipient has shown gross ingratitude.

Citing Roman-Dutch legal principles and prior judgments, the judge noted that personal violence, treacherous deeds, or acts that infringe on the donor’s rights could justify revocation.

On the first ground of revocation, the court found that the evidence was insufficient.While Mupini attached summons to support his claims, Nathaniel denied authoring or ordering the legal action, and his signature was absent from the documents. The judge ruled that this created a dispute of fact that could not be resolved without further evidence. The second ground — allegations of violent conduct by Nathaniel in collaboration with his father — similarly fell short. Mupini had obtained a protection order against Nathaniel’s parents, but the grandson was not cited in the order.

On the final ground, emotional and psychological trauma, the court again found the evidence was lacking.

“The application procedure is inappropriate in the circumstances of this case,” ruled Justice Maxwell in her judgment.“None of the grounds stated as the basis for the revocation were proved. The revocation can therefore not be confirmed.”

Mupini’s plea was dismissed, leaving him to shoulder the costs of the case.

For Nathaniel, the judgment was a vindication, but it was far from a victory in the court of public opinion.

The family rift, laid bare for all to see, casts a long shadow over what should have been a legacy of love and trust between a grandfather and his grandson.In the end, Justice Maxwell’s words echoed with a sombre finality.

“The question is, has the applicant proved ingratitude on the part of the donee? The grounds for the revocation will be considered in answer to that question.”

The answer, at least in the eyes of the law, was NO.But for the Mupini family, the scars of this legal battle may linger far longer than the ink on the court’s judgment. *_-H-Metro_*