19920513 TZCA Arusha2

LI TH,~ COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT iillUSHA ( COHAI1 ~ OWu':}_,_ __,.T.ii. ~ t HAMiJ)I-Iil.NI 2 J .A. , AND f,'il-JZAVi.S 2 J .A.) CIVIL iJ,E:";AL NO. 7 OF 1992 B:::'JTWEEN • • • • • AP:i?i!JLL!tNT Vi'.LG-,::~IJ)I ML:::to. • • • • • • ll:?SPOlilDENT (Apyeal from the Ruling and Order made by the High Court of Tanzania at 1':..:i:uaha) (Nchalla, J .) dated the 26th day of January, 1990 in Arush8 High Court Miscellaneous Civil ii.pplica t ion Ho • 161 of 19~9 -----·. --- JUJ,X;.filf;;DNT Oli' TIDD COURT This is an appeal against the decision of the Hi,gh Court (Nchalla, J .) , in Hise. H.C. Civil 1,pplication No. 161 of 1986 dated 26/1/90 in which the court held that the decision of. the H.M. 1 s Cou~t in Misc. Civil l~pplication No. 51/81 granting letters of administrGtion to the Dppellimt/applicant, , Mw~mahowa Huya, was null and void• li.¢uin3 ii1 support of thG app1::ol Mr. D1 Souza, 11.rnrn-:id counad for thG 8pp21 lant submitted that the High Court fcil~d to consider thG appellant's application which wDs brought under the Probotc ond Administration Ordinonce, Cap. ~L45 of thG laws. It wos the lcrnrned councGl 1 s submission thot th2 apptllantts opplicction before the Rish Court WDS thDt in granting ldtc?rs of ••••• /2 . - 2 - administrotion of tho estate of thG docc8scd.Al~Hndji Karomo Maro, to tho respondent, Mwonaidi Maro, in the Proboto and Administration C2usc No.

5/1986 the H~h Court, (Chuo, J.) woe· misled in thnt the applicant, now tho r~spondont, failad to tho comply with. Rules 32 and 71 and section 49 ofL Probate and. Administration O.z,d:i.nancG. Mr. n•souzo also Sl:lbmittGd thot in his application for letters of Administration bJforc the High CoW!t, (Chuo, J.), tho respondent hod misled thG Court when she soid that no p~ocoodin~ for ~~ant of probate and/or _letters of administr:-:ition hod been comm-::nccd bcfor.:; any court inside or outsid~ T8nJcnyiko. In support of this argument the court was r..::fcrrcd to po::;-c 45 of the procoodi.ngs. li.ccord ing to Mr. D~Souzo•a submission inst...,cd of considGring oppcllont•s application which was boacd on non-compliance with the provision~ of tho Proboto and AdiJinistration ordinance, the High Court, (Nohallo, J !'), dealt with th~ case cs if it was an appeal and quashed the dceiaion of the R.M.' s Cow:t which grnntcd ldt;:;rs of 11.dministrotion to th~ appGllant~ o mott0r which was not before him. It was ariucd that if the respondent hod been aggri~vod by the.: d12ciaion of the R.M. 's Court in ProbatG and Administration Couse No. 51/1981 in which l~tt~rs of administration were granted to the appellant h~ should how app12nkd to the High Court or altcrnativcl,y- she could have applkd for r;:,vocation of the · grcmt under s0ction 49 of thG J>robatc and lld□ inistrotion Ordinance, Lastly

Mr. D'Souzn r.rgu.::d. that the High Court; (Nchollo, .r.)_, erred in im-okin:?; his rcvisional powc;rs suo moto in th<: course of writing his ruling. Th0 Court wus invited to ollow the oppcal on tho I· 3 - grounds that th.:: Rich' Court, (Nchallo, J.). fDil0d to dGcl with tho applicction bcfor~ him~ r.::spondcmt or_;·L1cc.1 thct it was not clc2r wh.::thc.:;r th..i nmttur should have bJcn handled cs n smell ~stot0 or as n big estate. It was submitted that for purposos of r0vocotion of o small Gstatc s~ction 82 of the Probate and Administration OrdinancG. appliod whcr_cas Gvction 49 of thG Ordinonco dccJlt with revocation of biG cstotGs. It wos Hr• NohatonG 's submission that prooocdinc~ in the lower courts shov that ·the: ncJttor was tro0tcd as o sr:iall "state cind that in c fit case the Hi@h Court ccn intcrfo.l'.\: with c grant of letters of. ocl1;1inistration by o lower court. The learned ddunce counsel ar::;uuc1 thot in the; present cns0 the Hieh Court, (Nohallo, J.)., 6.t'~ntcd lctturs of nduinistration to th0 respondent ofter it hod revoked th~ ;rant by the district court. It wos finally submitted the death of tb.0 c.\::c.:.,os0d, Alhadji Kotarno Maro; cmd that os such she: hnd no int.::.rcst in th,;; Gstatc as she hod alracJdy received her In r2ply Hr. D•Souz£: argui:;d thot the 0ppe:llant hDd not been divor,ce;u before th~ d~oth of her husbond. That she was o widow of

th-2 d-::c2asGc1 the coW?t was refor.t-cd to poa-e 9 of thv proci:;e:iings. As for the provisions of section 82 of Cop.445 Mr. D1Souz.:i subnittd ·that this argurJ,mt hcls bean brought roth;.;r: too l8te in th..: day. rt wos submitte;d that if the rmtter was trGQtcd os a sncll estate by the lower courts the respondent was ... 4 - rcq_uirGd to file on applicction be;fore; ChUG, J • under R.85 of Cap.445. H wos o lso argued tru::t undc r Rule 71 filing of consent of tho othor interGstcd po.rtic:s was nondatory and that no consent wcs fil~d by the respondent in hGr applieotion for lctkrs of Ai:.1niniritration befot-c, Chuo, J. It w~s fin~lly arau0d in reply thot the ruling the district c-:iurt. It wos submitted thcit Mr. Kiy.ayou•s rulinc concc i..ncc.1 Nr. Munuo•s application to be hoard~ In support of this. £Jx3·unont tho court was ref erred to pac;o 64 of thG procoecl in3s. This n~tt€~ has a checqucrcd history. It fil'st started in th\; priuo.cy court frotl where it was transferred to the distriot court as the appellant (then pGtitionc,.t) had inclicDtiid that he: wns Gi:1:::,loyin&; nn ndvocote:. On 16/4/81 kttera of administration '.rcro granted to th0 2ppcllnnt, Mwcnnhnwa Meya, by th<2 district court -. il1USI-L'l. :m.i!SID;:Jlfll MA~1'RJ;.TE 1 S COURT MISC. CIVIL 18.::.J.!i no. 51 of 1981. Dcspik this crant the: rGspondent, Mwanaidi Maro, filed a pGtition for l0ttGra of

cdninistration in tha HL3h Court - probate and Aar.1inist.r1=..~ion Cause No. 5 of 1986 in rtspoct of the snmc estate: and on 20/8/86 tb0 Rish Court, (Chua• J.), g.ront.::d 1-itters of administration to tho respondent. Dissatisfi~d by tho grant of l~tters of cdoinistration by tho Hi.eh Court, (Chl.lt:l, J.), to tho respondent., Mwanoidi Moro, th,2 appollant, Mwtmnhawa Muya, fild Misc. Civil appl.ioation Uo. 16.1/86 ,b.::f~ the Hi.Jh Court chnllenging tho grant 0£ letters of o dl!linistl:::rt ion by the Hie'h Court, (Chuo, J.) , to thi? prese;nt ,. J f - 5 - and (b) ·of tbJ Probate and Adrainistrotion Ordinonco, Cap. 445 and RulGs 32 .::rid 71 'Jf th" s~me Ordinance ii ond prnyud thDt the grant of lcttGrs of odwinistration to thJ respondent by tho High Court, ( Chu2, J.), be revoked. The: apJ.::licc:tio~ wcs h..:nrd oy th,:, HiE5h Court, (Nchollo, J.), in Misc. Civil_ Ay;;:,} •• No. 161/86 in which the l0nrn0cl juclGG said inter olia: ••• 11 Th0r0 ore several docur.i.,mts on rc:cord in this raatt.;,r indicatin__; thct th0 size of the clcccosGd's l.istDtG in this r.iattcr is quit-: subBtDntial, anountinG to hundrcs of thowrands of shill in3s, On th;; f 0r<_::oin-.-.' focts and r-:nsons, I on quik satisfied thot thu order ::;f th,~ :: istrict court rJDd:: on 8/4/81 in Misc~ Civil, App!.! ~..J1L81 sr::::ntin~· Litters of cidainistration to th·-: applicant• Mwnnahowa Heyo, ••• W[)S

null and void •••• In thG cireUt1Stnncas 1 invokG, th.., r:.:-fisionnl powGrs of this court both unckr 'section 31· (1) (2) of the Hc 0 istratcs 1 Courts Act .~. ond section 79 of the Civil ProcdW:c Coc~c, 1966, and horcby quash th-1 wholu proceodincs .~. ThG '·instant .Dj_l)licotion is disnissccl with costs~ 11 • Th0 Hi:_;b C'.)ui:'t also sBid th~'t the re:spon<lcm~., ._ ~wcnn_id~ Marci, WQS ~o rq □ein thG odninistrotor of cl-ccrnsoc.l 1 s propurty :2s n');~0intot'. by th0 Hic;h Court, (Chun, J.), in thG It is ::i:~·c:inst this d;;.oision by Ncholln, J., thot tb.c.., nppcllnnt has c0~~ to this Court. for thC:. parti"s oncl ofter our close GXGuinotion of ell th.G r1:eords ~ wo n:ro sotisfi0c~ in our own ninc:s th:::t th0 Hi3h Court, (Nehnll_0_f J .) , - 1 / ., ' ', ' 6 did not d ,::;ll Jrnl with, nor cJdarninc, the issues bdorc hir:1. " As cL:a:cly browJ.ht out fron ap:>0llant 1 s ap)lie::ition by ohor.1b,2r sLu:nons (pa,:-;.:: 8 of the procccclin;;s) the 1-::arncd judGC was c.skcc1 to dutcrDinc, wh0thGr or not th1: 0rant of ktt\;rs of .:icL:inistration to the r'3sponcknt by ChUD, J. was involid as th-.; :cGsponJc:nt bain:,:: the sok adr:1inistr;:ito.r did not file an afficavit os required under Rule 32 of tho Probak Rules. The srant W8S also sai::1 to be inv0lid bGOElUSC:, it WDS or1u0c1 by tl1.,; oyy::llon~ in his c:pplication bcf,JrG Nch_alla, J,, the: r-:;spondcmt (~it: not

file "CONSENr 11 of all those; who woultl be entitlc:cl t,.) the whole or port of the de:c0ase:Ps estate as req_uir~d by .11ul.::: 71 of the Probate H.u,lcs. Finally tl1;.; lrnrncc1 judG.J was rcq_uirt.:id to dcci~1e whctnct- or not th(.; :"front by the Hifh Court, (Chua, J.) was invo licl by reason of bcin; obtcinvd frcJuduL.mtly by th" rGsponcknt who Appc:::r2ntly n•:i whor(, in his Lmzthy rulin.~· do-=s the learned juJ~,·c T-10ntirJn, le::iv0 8lorn: discuss, the sc,rious As WG _ h:::v,.: clrl.'ady ncnti:m.;;~1 above the: k8'.'.:'Ud juc:gc r.1croly '-·· invoked lis :iow...,rs .:;f r2vision suo rn)to nncl held th2t the resident nc(;istrctc•s court had no power to ~;rsnt letters of nd□ inistrcition to tl1c appellant and Jisnisscd appellant's ~ . . nppl'ication whicil chollcn,,-~0rJ th1.; Grant of letters of nd.n:i.ii'istrd ion t:: 'thG rrni)ondcnt by the Ifi,_:-;h Cou.rt, (Chuo, J.). ... - 1 - Clac1rly, en,, os th0 L"ornd jm1t;c will no (1:Jubt cl::£N1c with us on r.::fLc-tion, the question whGthcr or riot the r,si:lent Lm~;-istrDtc 1 s eourt h8d i)OW(;!'.' ...to erant lGttGrs of aJ::1inistrdtion to the ap;_)Cllant was not the issu0 -::i2forG hir.i. The issu.:: bGforc hio wos wh<:thor, as allJ,:idd in th" chonbcr sur.nons, the respondent hDd nisled nnd/or 'infornotion L con cc 8llcd · i,.1_;od,mt fron the H:l.e;h Court, (Chuo• J.), and thiJNby c~1usin~: it to !}'rant lottcrs of

cidrJinist:totion to th:; rcspom:cnt; which ldtGrs of odninistrotion th.e Hi.eh Court woul~ n,.:,t hove 5rant0d hocl th.:, true fo~ts been divuli~"cl by th.J Nsponc1cnt to the: court. (Nchc:1lla, J •) ~ wc:s based on non-conplioncc of Rule 32 ond 71 cn::l saetion 49 of the :Probate an<l J;.dninistration ordinance, Cop.· 445 of tb.,: lcv:s • Section 49 of the OrJ inoncc -2nuucrot..:is r.::osons whieh nay cousc the _;:cunt of j,)robote ond ktkrs 0f adr.1inistrotion to be annulkd; Om, of such· .reasons is whore "tho ~.ront wss obtDinad fr~udul.:mtly by ::ickinc D folsG auz!.";<:lstion, or by eonccqlline £rem the court so1Jdhin:~ notorial to th.:.: cosc". th.:: rasp,~m1crnt, Mwc.nDicli Moro, stntod in porcgroph seven: "No ',)I'OCC-:Cin:SS for the 3ront of p:t!obot~ oncl/or ldtors of oa~.1inistration or othdrwis.;; for the cdoinistrotion of thG soid·dae~oscd•s ustatc havo bc1.:n cooo-1nccd bcf.~rc :my court of cot1pctcmt outh-:,.ri ty whoth<:r inside Toncronyikc:i or outs ilk it 11 • . ... /8 1 .. 8 - It \ms iti:. D•Souza rs subr:.ission, os olre:ody rJGntionc,1 above, th£1t thG :C·Jsp::m~\mt nisld the court whcm she soid thct th1:rG hod not ba<:n ~my pi:oc.::c~:inzs for crcnt of probate or lcttGrs of adninistr3tion :CG(;2r~1in:; the Gstntq whiL- shG vary wGll knew srantcd thot the; 8IJ)Cll:m-t ho,1 bo<m.b. · · _Lt-t0rs of c,~ninistrotion by the ~1.H. 1 s court wh0rc she

(rGspondcnt)- was 'the ubjcctor... This dclibc~ctc lie by th0 respondent, it was orsuad, would hove 1::ntitlcd the Hirsh Court, _(Nchcllo, J.), to annul the (3'.ront of kttc::s of .::idninistr11 tion to the r-.:spondcnt by the? His-h Court, (Ch,uo, J,.) - Ls, it wos subr.1ittcc1, Chua, J. would net aware hnvG :3"rcn k-1 kt"i:crs vf odt!inistrotion if he hc::d bcl:nL that Ltters ,,f aduinistr3tion in r'-'sp.:ct of the sane asfatc · Jvlr .. J'ii2hc.t,:mc, Larned cciunscl for the respondent, vi{:'.'orously ar~·u12d that scctbn 49 of the Probnt\i onc.1 Adninistrdion Ordinance , talks about fraud anc1 thc:it the rospondcnt did n::it frauduL:mtly nisl;;ad the eoµrt.. i'-b:'. UchotcJne cJlso subnittcd thcJt fcilure; to adhGre to, thG ruLs ::::, __ o not by itself har::i the intcr~sts of the: par:tks. With r0c.;,:,cct to the l1.;orne:J counsel for the r0spondcnt SGction 49 t1·: \ • I. d i0·\ \ tho Probcti.:> ond i~dninistr::ition Ordinance is very clear ,:m:: ~>xs not require interpretation or intGrpolotion. H.cspomlimt's blot::i"nt li0s thot there ha:.1 not bGen pr0vious proce:edin,:.:;s lc.:tkrs re5ordin'.s ~ront ')f probatG or[ of nduinistrotion while: she was in fact the oi)j0ctor in thG 11 .M.' s Court when letters of c:idninistration wore i5rc.1nkd to tho appGll,mt. a □ply dc::1onstrakcl that shG was.bent to defraud other intcrcst8d-partics in the cstote. Hod the I-Ii:_;h Court

(NchDlla, J,), dGolt with this i,ssw ho would n,.; ::.:ou::it haw f,Jun.:l tl12.t this w0 s a coed rcoson to cJnnul I,:, e e • • ,. I ✓ 1. 9 - Wi:; a:";rc0 th.ct in ~ proper case th<; Hi:Jh Court con invokG its powers :Jf r"visicn in Q erant of ldkrs of ack1inistrotion by th0 distric·~ court. Powers of rs:vision ar;.; howovor usually Gxcrcis0::l by th:.: :O::is-h Court stro L1oto whan 01wrcisin~~ its ..,. \i sup0rviaocy ~~owcrs over suborclinat-1 courts. It is, in our viaw wron~, i;ndocd iL1·.1ro~~,;r, for tho H~h Court to r,.,sort to its .t'GVisionel '.:Y)Wi.;rS whc:rc (as it wns in this cos..:;), there: are sp..;cific issu.:s celling ;for cldcrninotion by the court. f;.s for r:rr. 1-'lcht:itonets subnission that the ap·,XJllant hod no int-;rs:st in th,2 (;Stat-, as she hc1d bGen divorc~d five h(?r_ ;ikithur:mi· 1 un,:cr· Isla □ ic low,· this would h~v2 · b0c:n a ' It W')Uld cilsc lrnva bc,m a roLvont .<Jrguncnt if th0 respondent .' to tb,a appc ll8nt cy the ll. .n. 's Court• We, with r.::s:90et, do not sec the, rulovoncy of the:; ar.Juncnt in this crJ~)0nl which is O'.jainst thu dceision of thG nlf:3" h T_J'• Curt 0 ~ (··· 11C,.1.- -"', J.), thc"t 1,.,..,1,~ c, h,-,• hr?d - • .., . to duc1."d0 the: f,'-',1.·1,.,,,, issues b0for2 hin. did n0t c1t a 11 c,:;,nsiJcr thc, applieation of the opplicnnt which / woa orcwsht un~~or the ProbntG ond li.(binistrotion Ordinance -

ccp, 445. J As for th:.: Jccision of _th.J Hi.eh C:;urt, (Chuo, J.).,: it is ckor fron wh:~t '.:le hcvC: statd abovc th::it kttcrs of o::1oinistrotion I., " 10 - would not h2v0 ]x,cn ~'.ront-;d to the re:spon~knt ho:l the Hi.sh Court teem infornd of th" feet tru:it ldters of acbinistration in respect of the sane '-'stotc: hod alr,2mly bG;cn i•:rcmtcc~ to the appellant by R.fll. 1 s Court. ,,e agree ·-ith Mr. D1Souzafs oreuncnt thet the rcs 1JonJcnt -wos wholly to 0la;:,1c in r:iislcac1 inf!' the Court to c1o what it would not hGVC d (Jl1(; h...,r, it been aware of the fact of the pr,::vious c...i\.., 6 rcmt of lGtkrs of od11inistrotion to the appellant. In the 0vcnt this opr,ca 1 is uphc lc1 with costs in this Court on--.': th0 c::;urts bdow. :E'or avoiclcncc of doubt this dee is ion docs not bar th" respondent fron choll,m,::inc th2 grant of lctt0rs of odninistrction to th0 appJllont by the H..N.'s Court if shc is so r.1in::kd. DAT::ill o t ATU3Ili, this 13th cloy of Moy , 1992 • Ii. • S • L • IL:J•LS)H!.NI N• S • 1'1NZKVliS JUSTICE Oli' i.PPE!.L,. \ I certify that tnis is o trua copy of the o.rieinol. (M. S;ff;) DJill'UTY Itl!P S'I'HJJ.l•