20170728 TZHC Dodoma

"ORIGINAL" IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DODOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY AT DODOMA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2017 (From District Court of SINGIDA, Civil Case No. 18 of 2016) ERNEST BETWEL VUHAHULA ......... ......... .APPELLANT VERSUS GRACE AMOS R. VUHAHULA................ .... . RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT Date of JUDGEMENT- 28/07/2017. Mansoor, J: The dispute is over a workshop registered in the name of Vuhahula Domestic Workshop located at Utemini Street at Kuuvu within Singida Municipality. The Workshop was owned by the late Amos Vuhahula, the grandfather of the Appellant, and the father of the Respondent. The respondent is the administratix of the late Amos Vuhahula duly appointed by the Court. The late Amos Vuhahula died in 2011. JI- 1 "ORIGINAL" The appellant's case is that, his grandfather gave him the workshop when he was still alive as he was working with him at the workshop, and he was raised by his grandfather since he was still little. That the grandmother, who is also dead, witnessed the late Amos Vuhahula giving the workshop to his grandson, the Appellant herein. After the death of his grandfather, the Appellant herein changed the name of the workshop from Vuhahula Domestic Workshop to Ernest Vuhahula, and he produced in court, the Certificate of Registration No. 000007807 (Exhibit P2). He also changed the business licence into his name. The business licences were admitted in court as Exhibit Dl and D2, respectively. The Appellant states that he continued running the workshop at his own expenses after the death of his grandfather. He exhibited receipts for payment of rent which were admitted as Exhibit D.S. Grace Amos Vuhahula, states that before the death of their father, the workshop was given to his brother Mr Richard Amos, and that the workshop forms part of the assets of the 2 "ORIGINAL" decased, for which she has a duty to administer. She states further that, the Appellant is already given his share of the estates through his father who has the right to inherit. She states further that she has not seen any evidence presented by the Appellant proving his allegation that the workshop was given to him by the late Amos Vuhahula before his death. She also questioned as to why the Appellant would transfer the name of the business into his name after the death of the late Amos Vuhahula and why not before the death. She states further that the Appellant is not telling the truth. I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides, and carefully went through the records of the Trial Court, and it is crystal clear that there is no dispute that the workshop was owned by the late Amos Vuhahula, and that the Appellant was working at the workshop with the late Amos Vuhahula, his grandfather. Again, there is no dispute that the respondent herein was appointed the administratix of the estates of the late Amos Vuhahula, and her duties is to collect and administer and distribute to the heirs the entire estate of the 3 "ORIGINAL" deceased as provided by item 5 of the 5 th Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap 11 R: E 2002, which reads: 5. "An administrator appointed by a prima,-y court shall, with reasonable diligence, collect the property of the deceased and the debts that were due to him, pay the debts of the deceased. and the debts and costs of the administration and shall thereafter distril;,u.te the estate .of.the d_ecea~~<J.-,t~ the persons or for the purposes entitled thereto and, in carrying out his duties, shall give effect to the directions of the prima,-y court." Therefore the duties of administrator of an estate are limited to the winding up of the estate of a deceased, to reduce to possession the personal assets of the deceased; to pay the deceased's debts; to pay inheritances or legacies; and to distribute the surplus to the parties entitled thereto. Every 4 "ORIGINAL" administrator has the right to the possession of all the personal estate of the deceased, unless otherwise directed in the will, if any; and the administrator in this case has properly taken all proper steps to acquire possession of the assets of the deceased including the workshop. The Administrator also has a duty to make a return of true and complete inventories and to collect all debts due to the estate deceased property. It is also clear that and it is not disputed that the workshop belonged to the late Amos Vuhahula, and that the Appellant herein failed -to prove that the late Amos Vuhahula had transferred the ownership of the workshop into his name before the late Amos Vuhahula passed away. The Administrator however is also responsible to pay all debts that may be due from the estate which are properly probated and registered. Thus, since it has been exhibited that the Appellant was paying rent and salaries, and other expenses in running the workshop, the Appellant will have to register his expenses at the probate court which appointed the respondent as the administrator, and the respondent shall 5 " "ORIGINAL" • have a duty to pay all the ·expenses incurred by the Appella:n.t after the death of the late Mzee Amos Vuhahula until the date ' ' the Appellant was or will be dispossesed of the workshop. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed in the ~ense that the Appellant be paid his expenses for the running of the workshop from the date his grandfather passed away to the date he was dispossessed or will be dispossessed of the workshop. The appeal is dismissed on the part that the workshop belongs to the late Amos Vuhahula, and the respondents· herein has a right to possession· of the· workshop as the Administratix of the late Amos Vuhahula's property. No costs. It is so ordered. DATED at DODOMA this 28 th day of JULY, 2017 L.~R JUDGE 28TH JULY 2017 6