PC CIVIL APPEAL NO 8829 OF 2024 Amiri Ramadhani admin of Est

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA TEMEKE SUB-REGISTRY (ONE-STOP JUDICIAL CENTRE) AT TEMEKE PC. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8829 OF 2024 (Arising from the decision of the District Court of Temeke at Terneke One Stop-Judicial Centre in Probate Appeal No. 31 of2022) AMIRI RAMADHANI (As the Administrator of the Estate of Ramadhani Amiri).................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS MTEMBEZI RAMADHANI AMIRI..................................................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 04th July & 28th August, 2024 BARTH Y, J.: The appellant above dissatisfied with the decision of district court of Temeke at Temeke One-Stop Judicial Centre, appeals to this court against the said judgment based on the following grounds; 1. That the district court erred in law when granted a relief which was not prayed for. 2. That the district court erred in law when made a decision on a matter that is not on record without involving the parties. Page 1 of 9 Wherefore, the appellant prayed to this court uphold this appeal, nullify the order which directed the trial court to rewrite the judgment and grant the costs of this appeal and the courts below. The hearing of this matter proceeded by way of written submissions. The appellant was represented by Mr. Charles Ndaki, holding brief for Prof. Cilicas Binamungu, while Mr. Jerome Msemwa, learned advocate, appeared for the respondent. The background of this matter is crucial in appreciating the substance of this appeal. Following the death of the late Ramadhani Amiri, the appellant petitioned for and was granted letters of administration with Kinondoni Primary Court vide Probate Cause No. 474 of 2008 (the trial court). The respondent then filed for application for revocation of letters granted to the appellant with the complaints lodged to the trial court. The appellant was revoked his letters for administration, he was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court and appealed to the district court of Temeke at Temeke One Stop Centre (the first appellate court) challenging the decision of the trial court. The decision of the first appellate court was such that the trial court gave its decision without attaching any Page 2 of 9 reason to it, then it ordered the file be remitted to the trial court to compose proper judgment in conformity to the law. The appellant aggrieved with the decision of the first appellate court appealed to this court advancing two grounds of appeal listed above. At the hearing of this matter, the appellant's submission was prepared by Prof. Binamungu learned counsel. On his submission, he argued both grounds of appeal together. The first ground is faulting the first appellate court to have granted the prayer that was not sought by the parties. As for the second ground he faulted the first appellate court to have decided on the matter not on record without involving the parties. It was his submission that, the first appellate court granted the prayer in the course of composing the judgment and the parties were never invited to address the court. Citing the cases of Managing Director Kenya Commercial Bank (T) Ltd and another vs. Shadrack J. Ndege, Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2019, and the case of Jamali Ahmed vs. CRDB Bank Ltd [2016] TLS LR 106, where it was insisted that the court must decide on the issues found on pleadings and for issues not in the pleadings, the parties must be afforded the right to be heard. Page 3 of 9 Prof. Binamungu restated the prayers made by the parties and insisted that it was not among the prayers granted by court. To reinforce his argument, he cited the case of Edson Mbogoro vs. OC-CID Songea and A.G, Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2004, Court at Appeal at Mbeya decided not to grant the prayer that was not sought by the parties. It was therefore his prayer that the appeal be allowed with costs. The respondent's reply to the submission was prepared by learned advocate Mr. Jerome Joseph Msemwa who stated that they do not intend to oppose this appeal and prayed for this appeal to be allowed. It was his argument that this court should also order the matter to be returned to trial court with the direction that Probate and Administration Cause No. 474 of 2008 be finalized within given time. It was countered that the appellant is only playing the delaying tactics to stall the matter as the probate matter has not been closed for about 10 years now, since the appointment of the administrator. The appellant through his advocate did not file any rejoinder to their submission with respect to the present appeal. Page 4 of 9 Having gone through the submission, with regard to the grounds of appeal in this matter I will resolve them in one issue for determination as to whether the district court erred in law by granting a relief that was not prayed for and by making a decision on a matter not on record without involving the parties. In dealing with the issue at hand, the court considers that, during the hearing of the said appeal before the first appellate court, the appellant's counsel abandoned the grounds of the said appeal and he was remained with one ground of appeal for determination which I reproduce hereunder for easy reference; That, the Primary Court Magistrate erred in law when removed the appellant from the administration of estate without following the law in force. It was the submission of Mr. Binamungu that before the first appellate court that the primary court has legal mandate to revoke the letters of administration granted, but there has to be reasons for revocation as stated under the law. Page 5 of 9 In response, Mr. Msemwa stated that there was reason for revoking the letters of administration and the trial court assigned reasons for invoking the said powers. The first appellate court had made its findings that the trial court erred to have revoked the letters of administration of the appellant without assigning any reason to it. Therefore, ordered the file to be remitted back to the trial court to compose ruling properly in accordance to the law. The provision of rule 2(c) of the Fifth Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap 11 R.E. 2019 provides that; 3. A primary court upon which jurisdiction in the administration of deceased's estates has been conferred may- (a) N/A (b) N/A (c) revoke any appointment of an administrator for a good and sufficient cause and require the surrender of any document evidencing his appointment; [Emphasis is supplied]. - Page 6 of 9 It is a well-established principle that any judicial decision, especially one involving the revocation of letters of administration, must be supported by clear and sufficient reasoning. The failure to provide reasons not only undermines the validity of the decision but also violates the rights of the parties involved. The decision of the trial court in this matter failed to meet this fundamental requirement, as it did not assign any legal reasons for the revocation of the letters of administration granted to the appellant. The omission by the trial court to provide reasons for the revocation is a serious error that goes to the root of the matter. Such an omission cannot be overlooked or remedied by simply ordering the trial court to recompose its ruling with the necessary reasons. The lack of reasons renders the decision defective and raises significant questions about the fairness and legality of the revocation process. While the appellate court has revisional powers to address procedural irregularities, such powers are limited when the irregularity in question is fundamental and prejudicial to the parties involved. In this case, the error committed by the trial court is not a mere procedural irregularity but a violation of a substantive legal requirement. Therefore, it cannot be rectified by ordering a re-composition of the decision. Page 7 of 9 In light of the foregoing findings, this court concludes that the revocation of the letters of administration by the trial court was procedurally improper due to the failure to provide any reasons for the decision. The first appellate court also failed to adequately address this significant procedural anomaly. As the second appellate court, it is our duty to ensure the proper application of the law by lower courts. This principle was reinforced in the case of Adelina Koku Anifa & Another vs. Byarugaba Alex (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2019), Court of Appeal at Bukoba [2019] TZCA 416 (4 December 2019). I find that the decisions of both lower courts are legally flawed and unjustified. Accordingly, the court orders that the trial court's decision to revoke the letters of administration is quashed, and the decisions of both the trial and first appellate courts are set aside. The letters of administration previously granted to the appellant are hereby reinstated. Furthermore, the matter is remitted back to the trial court with specific instructions to ensure that the probate and administration proceedings are diligently managed and brought to a timely conclusion. This case has been pending in court for an extended period, thereby affecting the rights of the beneficiaries. It is imperative that the trial court expedites the process to Page 8 of 9 avoid further delays and to safeguard the interests of all parties involved. Given the relationship between the parties, I make no order as to costs. I order accordingly. Dated at Temeke this 28th August, 2024. . N. BAR JUDGE Delivered in the presence of Mr. Shaaban Marijani for Mr. Ciliacus Binamungu learned advocate for the appellant, respondent in person and Ms. Bernadina Tayari, RMA. Page 9 of 9