naftary petro vs mary protas 2019 tzca 357 30 october 2019

naftary petro vs mary protas 2019 tzca 357 30 october 2019

The appellant was not a person interested in the deceased's estate as required by Paragraph 2(a) of the Fifth Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act. The High Court correctly revoked his appointment, having properly considered both the statutory requirement of beneficial interest and the alleged wishes of the deceased, which were not proven. The sole ground of appeal lacked merit.

Citation
naftary petro vs mary protas 2019 tzca 357 30 october 2019
Parties
Appellant: Naftary Petro; Respondent: Mary Protas
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Administrator, Interest in Estate, Revocation of Appointment, Wishes of Deceased
Source Language
English
Succession Law Civil Procedure Appointment of Administrator Interest in Estate Revocation of Appointment Wishes of Deceased

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naftary Petro

Appellant

Mary Protas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court properly considered Paragraph 2(a) of the Fifth Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act in revoking the appellant's appointment as co-administrator

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not a person interested in the deceased's estate as required by Paragraph 2(a) of the Fifth Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act. The High Court correctly revoked his appointment, having properly considered both the statutory requirement of beneficial interest and the alleged wishes of the deceased, which were not proven. The sole ground of appeal lacked merit.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs in this Court and the courts below.