1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA TEMEKE SUB-REGISTRY (ONE STOP JUDICIAL CENTRE)

AT TEMEKE MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19874 OF 2024 (Arising from Probate and Administration Cause No. 27225 of2023 at High Court of Tanzania Temeke High Court Sub - Registry (One Stop Judicial Centre) At Temeke) ASIA AMOUR MOHAMED................................................ APPLICANT

VERSUS PAULINE ABDI HOZA............................................. 1st RESPONDENT ANNA ABDI HOZA.................................................. 2nd RESPONDENT

RULING Date of last order: 25/11/2024 Date of Ruling: 20/12/2024 OMARI, J. The Applicant herein is a beneficiary of the estate of the late Abdi Mohamed Hoza while the Respondents are the Administrators of the estate of the late Abdi Mohamed Hoza. The Applicant brought this Application under section 49 (1) (a) (c) and (2) of the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap 352 R.E 2002 (the PAEA) seeking for among other things that this court revokes the letters of administration granted to the Respondent; grant letters of administration to the Applicant herein or in the alternative but without prejudice to the prayer to revoke the Respondents join the Applicant as a co-administratrix in Probate and Administration Cause No. 27225 of 2C23. The Application is supported by the Applicant's Affidavit in which she basically deposed that the Respondents were trying to disinherit her ard her children as well as wilfully exhibiting an inventory and accounts of the estate that are untrue. In her Affidavit, the Applicant also deposed that the Respondents obtained the grant fraudulently as they misled the court cn the true identity, citizenship and nationality of the first Respondent has renounced her citizenship and changed her name from Pauline Abdi Hoza to Pauline McCray. Furthermore, the Applicant deposed that the Will that is annexed to the Petition is not valid in accordance with

the laws of Tarzania and it has bequeathed nothing to her children thus, if it is executed as is, some of the legal heirs will be denied their right to an inheritance. The 2nd Respondent deposed a Counter Affidavit to contest the Application on behalf of both Respondents. At the hearing, the Applicant had the services of Mr. Mutakyamirwa Philemon while the Respondents had the services of Ms. Nakazaeli Lukio Teng a and Mr. Hamisi Mfinanga all of whom are learned advocates. The hearing cf this matter was conducted by way of written submission and the parties complied to the scheduling order entered. The Applicant's submission hinges on two aspects, the Respondents vio ation of section 49(l)(a)(b) and (c) of the PAEA and the Respondents wilful exhibition of the inventory and accounts that are biased and untrue in a material respect. The Respondent's submission pivots on three aspects that they wish this court to consider, that is whether there is a violation of section 49(l)(a)(b) and (c) of the PAEA, whether the Respondents have exhibited an inventory which is biased and whether the Applicant is a reliable person capable of being added as an administrator. I will start with the second leg of the Applicant counsel's submission which entails the Respondents exhibiting an inventory and or accounts that is biased and untrue in material aspects. Although the Respondent's

ccunsel submission is that the Applicant did not file a Caveat to contest the Petition then she cannot object to the Will or Petition at this point as the Respondents are already in the office as Administratrixes. As for the concerns over the inventory, it is their submission that the Applicant should have reached out to the Respondents and raised the concerns with them. Counsel went on further to explain why the said children were left out stating that it is because they are not in the deceased's Will. Further, counsel for the Respondents explained what the Applicant had to do for them to consider the children as legal heirs since they were left out of the Will and why they tried to evict the Applicant from the house she is living in. I chose to start with the above because the reasons so deposed and the justification and defences submitted by both parties are either overtaken by events or premature. The Applicant having been in court from the beginning of this matter never raised the issues as regards the Will. While the record shows the was intent on objecting the Petition she did not go through with it. Thus, at this point even if it is with hindsight, it is rather futile to contest the Will. Regarding the inventory and or accounts of the estate, this court in the Ruling of Misc. Civil Application No. 9169 of 2024 stated all issues regarding the exhibition of the inventory

and accounts of the estate were premature. This is because the inventory and accounts of the estate have not been heard and approved/confirmed by this court. This Application was filed in the midst of Misc. Civil Application No. 9169 of 2024 thus even after Misc. Civil Application No. 9169 of 2024 was determined nothing had progressed by way of hearing of the inventory and or accounts of the estate. For clarity, all objections regarding the inventory and or the accounts of the estate are heard at a hearing fixed for that purpose which is the essence of exhibiting the two documents as provided for under section 107 of the PAEA. I therefore find this set of reasons as unmeritorious to render the Respondents' revocation as per the law. As for the first leg of the submission which is based on the Respondent's violation of section 49(1) (a) (b) and (c) of the PAEA. On the allegation of the 1st Respondent not being a Tanzanian, I agree with the Respondent's counsel that one need not be a citizen or resident of Tanzania to petition for grant of letters of administration and or be appointed as an administ'ator. Nonetheless, one would need to be truthful in providing information as regards their nationality and residence in their Petition. Going through the record of Probate and Administration Cause No. 27225 of 2023 it is depicted that both Respondents were given letters of

introduction by the local government stating that they are Tanzanians and in the said letters they bear the same names as the ones they used in the Petition that is Pauline Abdi Hoza and Anna Abdi Hoza. The Applicant's advocate invited this court to invoke powers under Order X Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 33 RE 2019, and examine orally the Respondents as to their nationality and residence as well as th a 1st Respondent's name. However, I take note of the fact that the 2nd Respondent's Affidavit was only to the effect of their residence(s) but did not make any averment as regards the 1st Respondent's identity of being Pauline McCray and not Pauline Abdi Hoza. She neither agreed nor controverted the assertion that the 1st Respondent's name is Pauline McCray, which in my view amounts to admission. The 1st Respondent presented herself as Pauline Abdi Hoza when she was a Petition and this court has appointed her as a co- administrator of the estate of the late Abdi Mohamed Hoza being the 1st Administrator while she is in fact Pauline McCray. This means the Petition and accompanying documents are signed by a non-existent person. Likewise, the grant is made to a co-administrator who does not exist regardless of the Applicant's presence at the hearing or consenting. In light of the above the Applicant has sufficiently provided reasons for this court to invoke section

49(l)(a)(b) and (c) of the PAEA. In that regard I hereby revoke the grant of letters of administration granted to the Respondents in Probate and Administration Cause No. 27225 of 2023 on 22 December, 2023. The Applicant made a prayer that she be appointed and be granted letters of administration as administratrix of the late Abdi Mohamed Hoza or in the alternative to be joined as co-administrator together with the Respondents. I decline the grant of this prayer since she has established that the grant was obtained in a manner that this court sees it fit to invoke the provisions of section 49(1) (a) (b) and (c) and in accordance with section 49(2) revoked the grant then it would be futile to add her as co-administrator. As for the prayer to appoint her as a successor administrator in Probate1 and Administration Cause No. 27225 of 2023 I also refrain from doing so as although I saw it futile to address some of the issues raised in her Affidavit in the circumstances of the grant having been obtained in the circumstances falling in within 49 (1) (a)(a)(b) of the PAEA it is in my view appointing her as a successor administrator will be recycling the problems she is complaining about. It is for that reason that I find it prudent to leave it open to her and or any other interested party to petition for a grant as per the law. Consequently, I make the following orders: 1. The Respondents are ordered to surrender the grant to the Hon. Deputy Registrar on or before 07 January, 2025.

2. The revoked administratrixes are inline with section 49(3) of the PAEA ordered to file an inventory and accounts of the estate of the late Abdi Mohamed Hoza as of the date of this Ruling on or before 28 January,2025.

3. Given that this Application emanates from an administration mazter I order the parties to bear their own costs. It is so ordered. A.A. OMARI

JUDGE 20/12/2024 Ruling dated and delivered 20th December 2024 in the presence o Mr. Mutakyamirwa Philemon and Mr. Grayson Laizer advocates for the Applicant and Respondents respectively with the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent in attendance. A.A. OMARI

JUDGE 20/12/2024