Burugu Jagadi 2892

The Judiciary of Tanzania IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT SHINYANGA CIVIL APPEAL CASE REFERENCE NO. 000002892/2025 BURUGU JAGADI TOLA……..………………............................................ APPELLANT Versus METHEW TOLA JAGADI…………………………………………………...… RESPONDENT (Originating from the Decision of the District Court of Kishapu at Kishapu) (Hon. M.Turuka - SRM) Dated the 9th January, 2025 in Civil Appeal Case No. 19585/2024 ----------------------------- JUDGMENT 5th & 21st March, 2025. F.H. MAHIMBALI, J. This is the second appeal after the first appellate court had quashed the trial court’s findings which appointed the appellant as administrator of the estate of the late Anastazia Paulo Mihambo who died intestate about 20 years ago. The first appellate court after had digested the appeal before it, made the findings that since the respondent petitioned to set aside the appellant 1 as an administrator of their father's estate the same was appealed before High Court Tabora in civil appeal 23522/2024 thus making clear that there was the pending appeal of the same nature between the appellant and respondent, there cannot be two administrators of the same deceased, the same parties and over the same subject matter the probate case filed at Kishapu Primary in Kishapu District was of no legal effect and is considered as an abuse to judicial Process. Aggrieved by that decision, the appellant has preferred this appeal predicated on three grounds namely: 1. That, the learned magistrate erred in law and facts for failing to evaluate properly the evidence which was adduced by the parties to the trial court. 2. That, the learned magistrate erred in law for entertain the appeal where by respondent does not exist. 3. That, the learned magistrate erred in law for ruling that the Probate Cause no.17 of 2024 was Res judicata to the Civil Appeal No.23522/2024. During the hearing of the appeal, parties appeared in person, unrepresented. 2 Arguing for his appeal, the appellant submitted that his appeal is against the decision of the District Court which differed with the trial court’s findings which appointed him as administrator of the estate of the late Anastazia Paulo. That decision of the trial court was the one which was the right. The District Court failed to evaluate evidence of the trial court. Thus, it wrongly decided the matter. He presses that the decision of the trial court be restored. The respondent on the other hand, resisted the appeal, saying that it was him who was appointed the administrator of the estate Anastazia –their mother. While going on discharging the duties of the said estate, he noted this appellant who is his young sibling had secretly set aside his appointment before Nzega district Court in which he had challenged his appointment before Bukene Primary Court of Nzega District. Aggrieved by that, he has appealed against his revocation before the High Court Tabora (Appeal no. 23522 of 2024). It was unfortunate that while the appeal is pending before Tabora High Court, the appellant went to Kishapu Primary Court praying to be appointed administrator of the estate of the same deceased which application was granted. He successfully challenged it before Kishapu DC. Now he is tossing his chance before this Court. For the interests of justice, 3 he is praying that they should have waited for the outcome of Tabora High Court in the pending appeal. Having so submitted, he prayed this appeal be dismissed for it might bring confusion in the administration of justice over the same matter being administered twice by two different jurisdictions in the same country. In his rejoinder submission, the appellant without disputing the existence of the pending appeal before Tabora High Court, he appeared as switching off data, by submitting that data even if the respondent was appointed administrator of Anastazia, but it is not Anastazia Mihambo but Anastazia Shija. These are two different persons. He thus pressed for his appeal to be allowed. Having heard the parties’ submissions, it is undisputed that the appellant had successfully challenged his brother’s appointment as administrator of the estate of the late Anastazia before Nzega District Court. Since the respondent is not satisfied by that motion, he is challenging against that verdict before High Court Tabora. It will be an abuse of judicial process if the courts (in Shinyanga) take precedence over the same matter being challenged in the hierarchy at Tabora. Allowing that, is to bring chaos in the 4 administration of justice in our judicial system, a move I will not allow it to happen. There must be civilized manner of handling judicial proceedings in the country. With the available facts, proceeding with the merit of this appeal, is a ridicule to our judicial process. With all the above discussion and the analysis made, I find this appeal to have been brought without any sufficient cause; and thus, it is accordingly dismissed. The first appellate court’s decision is upheld. As the matter involves siblings, I order no costs as each party shall bear their own costs. Right of further appeal is hereby explained. DATED at SHINYANGA this 21st March 2025. F.H. Mahimbali Judge 5