19920109 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19920109 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 9 January 1992
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (probate and Administration) / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 9 January 1992
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (probate and Administration) / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Respondent's failure to account for proceeds from the sale of the hut constituted breach of trust; appellant and co-heirs are entitled to compensation for loss of estate benefit.
Court disposition
Appeal substantially allowed.
Orders
- Respondent to remit shs.3000/= to the estate of the deceased.
- Respondent to pay interest at 10 percent per annum on shs.3000/= from 1978.
- Each party to bear own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ally Shabani
AppellantRespondent (unnamed, full brother of deceased)
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Sale Proceeds to Be Remitted: shs 3,000
- Interest Rate Per Annum: percent 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal (probate and Administration) / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sale of the hut by the respondent was valid
- 02
Whether the respondent breached his duty as trustee by failing to account for proceeds
- 03
Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for loss of estate benefit
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant challenged the alleged sale of the hut and sought remedy for deprivation of estate benefit.
- Respondent
- Respondent claimed he sold the hut due to disrepair, held it as trustee, and had some interest in the property.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General trust law principles
A trustee must account for proceeds of estate property to beneficiaries upon their coming of age.
- 02
General probate law principles
Sale of estate property by trustee is valid if done bona fide and in the best interest of the estate.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Respondent's failure to account for proceeds from the sale of the hut constituted breach of trust; appellant and co-heirs are entitled to compensation for loss of estate benefit.
Obiter and limits
- No evidence challenges the bona fide nature of the sale.
- Sale price was not fraudulently underpriced.
- It was not necessary to involve the court in the sale since no probate proceedings had been filed.
Court disposition
Appeal substantially allowed.
- Respondent to remit shs.3000/= to the estate of the deceased.
- Respondent to pay interest at 10 percent per annum on shs.3000/= from 1978.
- Each party to bear own costs.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 9 January 1992
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 9 January 1992
'. .. . I IH TIIE III.CID: COURT OF TA1JZANIA 11.T Dlill ES Sf,J;.lVIMa . : (PC) CI7IL APPEAL HO, 8 OF 1990 ALLI.I,V C!i:i ~ .,.. ,, -.- DI"" Am ~ ~lJ..J.CU:•J . .' ,1.).,L•.i,..1,.i~t. I . t f & t. G. t t D·O ,0 4 ti O • ' t·• 0 0 0•0 • • , /, ~·r·T AP'PELTLJJ.~· versus JUD GM EN Te Thia n.ppocl o:riGi-nat<is froi:1 Probate and il.diu.:,1is-tra-'i;io11 Cause No. 109 o:t 1909 filed in the P:ci~Y c·olll't of 13uu"ttn.mi ui-'.;hin Ilala ni.strict, Docoasec.l Shabrutl Abc.lallcll ~ta, whoso cs·l;atc was tho subject av:ttcr, l{c:ft bcllind two children and a Widow. Ilis ostato consisted of a hu-'i; built on Ui."lXce,i.stOl'cd area in Duu"Ul:Ullii '11.o pnnar:y com:-'~ appointed Ally Shal:ian:i. 1 one of tho doccascd•:1 ~ to adr.ri.11.ia-'licl' tho estate. tn:t<Jr on -t,b.o c.ow:·t. Wi\.G inforncd "iihn;t the hut in qt.tcstion uas sold by the :r-csponc.lont to one IIalir:ia Mc;nya for shs.., y:jooj«., Rcsponclent and the clcccc1sed arc full brothers,. At the tioo of the (':.oath of theix father appellant anc.l his sister 'l'fcre ninors. B-.r fonil.:;r arz-anc~.10nts, rosponclo11t was entrustocl witl1 tho hu-t in question., Rcsponc.1-ent clains th2:~ ho decided to sell the udd hut after it :.1ac.l follon c.lown due ·i;o ui~opair. Thoue-ri rcsponclont was su.ppood to 111:l.llCl -'.;o tho throe hail's tho shs.3000/.. xcolisoc1 fl'o,.1 the soll of tho sui·i; hut to date he has not
clone. ~c sell uc1s effected in 1978c m:m.nullilo the buyc:r o:Z tho hut had o;rcctecl a six roor:1cd house, 'll1c p:d;:1ary couxt orclcrcc.l thnt appellant wa.s cntitloc.l fo possession of -~he sDid n:ewl,y o;r;ecfocl house. This decision uas :revi.sod by the Dis.,.;:dc-'c Court. !Iowc'ver, the cou:rt clid not c;i.ve an,Y specific ronccly to ·l.llc a1)l)cllant·• In. this .:ipi)enl.1 o.ppcllrur~ is challcn[;inc tho alloe:;ec1 cell of tho hut. D..1.t ~c1inst this D.re,u·.1ont it is a fact that resi)onclcnt ·had sone interest in the said hut. IIo hold it as a trustee. And his .. claim tha·i; he d.ccidccl to sell tho suit hut because it hac.l fallGn down in disrepair ho.cl not been dis1xr:ovccl,. Tho hut boinc on uiu'cc,i.storod land it 1roulc.l lmvc boon, diffit~J:~ to no.into.in dccoasoc.l property ric;ht over tho smcl ,la,1d aftc:r;; the iu.1:i; hac.l fc.llen down.. So his decision ( ..... .,/2 -, to sc.11 ii was in the bes·i in·~etcst of the .csta·tc" Tb.ore is no d\7idcnce Hhich cha.llbni;cs -l:iho bona. lido of the said sell. It was done before a witness. Since no probate pJrl:>dccclinc;s 1iaci boch filed in respect of the estate, iJ.; was not necessary to involve tho court in the saicl sru.e. .And the px:foc of shs• .3000/= is not questioned as beiue .fraudulently. undc:rpri9,0cl. As a uhole no faud aa.n ho inputed on tho roeponclcmt and the buyer fox the sole of the smd
hu_t. But as noted earlier-, thxouc;h deceasetl's clan a:rrangencnt the hut was entrustccl to the responclcnt for the 1Jcncfi t of the hoixs. So after scllint:; the huJli he uas suppocd to accotmt for the proceeds ·to the ic1an .'~ to the two chilcll'cn after_ they llacl ao,.ie of age. To date he had not done.." IIis failtn'e fo account for the procced_s,. and not fo:r selling the hut, ru:iounJi;ecl to breach of the snicl ·~rus_t. The house was sold in 1978. Hence fox over 12 years respondenJli had deprived the doccascd estate of Ji;he financial bcnefi•~ arisine- fror.1 the scid sale. Appcll£ln"i; and his co-dld.rs arc entitlocl ·co 1Jc coi.1pensa-lied for this loss. The best wey this can ho done is by orclc:r-inc peyi:1ent of inJi;crost on the said purchase m011c,r• In conclusiop., -'iim.s appeal aubstantic:.11.:/' f D.ila. Ilowcva.r, rosponc1ent is ordered to xcr.1j/c to the estate of the dccen.secl the sun. of shs.3000/=. realised from Julie sale the hut in question.., Bo is ,1'\l:tll.Q,r ordered to paJr interest of 10 pox ccp.tu,ra per ru1llUi:1 on the said a.-:1cx.u1Ji; With off ect fron 197:a_ &)cli party is to bcaJ: .W.s.. costs.,
JUDGE For the Appellant: Abson·~ . For the Respondent: AbscnJli ·. Orders Ju,.clg;i1cnt .1:ca.cl ovel' in the a1::iscncc -of tD.c parties• · Hr, ,, \L\l·•~tu.~ II .. 11:/~·MSU:MI .JUTIGE 9/l/92 ., .
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.