Land Case 253 of 2023 scanned

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION AT DAR-ES-SALAAM LAND CASE NO 253 OF 2023 1st PLAINTIFF PATRICK RWECHUNGURA........................................... ADELAIDE RWECHUNGURA MSAMBICHAKA.......... 2nd PLAINTIFF VERSUS PETER JOSEPH MUSHI.............................................. 1st DEFENDANT PETER JOSEPH MUSHI (As Personal Legal Representative of Agnes Regina Rwechungura)................................................ 2nd DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Date of Last Order: 17/2/2025 Date ofJudgment: 28/2/2025 LALTAIKA, J. The plaintiffs herein PATRICK RWECHUNGURA and ADELAIDE RWECHUNGURA MSAMBICHAKA instituted this suit praying for judgment and decree against both defendants named above for the following relief(s): (i) A declaration order that all the Land comprising in Certificate of Title No. 122800 over Plot No. 1976 Oysterbay Area, Kinondoni Municipality, Dar es Salaam Region does not form part of the estate of the late Agnes Regina Rwechungura as whole but jointly owned in equitable share of 25% each by the plaintiffs, beneficiaries of the estate of the late Agnes Page 1 of 48 Regina Rwechungura and heirs of Aurelia Rwechungura and the Land Register be rectified accordingly to reflect the owners. (ii) An order declaring the 1st defendant trespasser over all that Land comprising in Certificate of Title No. 122800 over Plot No. 1976, Oysterbay area, Kinondoni Municipality, Dar Es Salaam Region. (Hi) An order for payment of court assessed damages (Mesne Profits) for loss of us of the land at issue since the defendants are collecting and appropriating rent from the tenants at the detriment of the lawful owners of the property. (iv) An order for payment of Genera/ damages to be assessed by the court not be/ow 600,000,000/- (v) An order for Eviction of both defendants, Agents, workmen or Assignees from all that land comprising in Certificate of Title No. 122800 over Plot No. 1976 Oysterbay area, Kinondoni Municipality Dar Es Salaam Region and the plaintiffs yield vacant possession. (vi) An order for cost of the suit be issued against defendants. Representation by counsel was as follows: Mr. Daniel Ngudungi & Ms. Benadeta Fabian, learned Advocates appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr. Simba Pius Kipengele learned Advocate represented the defendants. I take this opportunity to register my appreciation to the Learned Advocates for their dedication and commitment. I should probably add that to avoid backlogs (known in court circles as backlog backstopping) a "continuous hearing" session was employed by this court for several suits including this one. Sometimes hearing lasted till eight PM in the night hours. Counsel impressed me with high level of energy and infectious enthusiasm. There is no doubt that such energy and Page 2 of 48 dedication is vital to enable this court to fulfil its constitutional mandate of timely dispensation of justice. On commencement of the hearing, Counsel assisted this court in formulating the following issues: 1. Who is the rightful owner of the suit property and to what extent of PLOT Number 1976 CT Number 122800 of Oysterbay Kinondoni, Dar 2. What are the reliefs the parties are entitled to. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to sue over the suit property. Pursuant to the principle obtained in our jurisdiction that he who alleges must prove (See section 110 of the Evidence Act Cap 6 R.E. 2019), as articulated by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in BERELIA KARANGIRANGI VS. ASTERIA NYALAMBWA CIVIL APPEAL No 237 of 2017 (unreported) the ball was on the court of the plaintiff to prove existence of the facts alleged to enable this court to give verdict as prayed. In line with the above, the plaintiffs paraded three witnesses and tendered six exhibits. The plaintiff's case, as built up through the three witnesses, is summarized below. The first Plaintiff's Witness (PW1) was Selemani Edward Mbelwa, 57 years old businessman, Resident of Mji Mpya Street, Mwabepande Ward, Kinondoni District. During examination in chief, PW1 stated that in 2011 he was residing in the Masaki area within Msasani Ward. During that period, he served as a member of the Ward Tribunal, Page 3 of 48 where his role involved hearing complaints and making decisions in collaboration with the Secretary to the Tribunal. He explained that the Tribunal comprised Mtaa Representatives and was chaired by Magreth Galwe at the time. He further testified that he knew an individual named Patrick, (1st Plaintiff herein) whom he first encountered in 2011 when Patrick brought a grievance before the Tribunal. Although he could not recall the exact date, he remembered that the dispute was between Patrick and his sister. According to him, Patrick had complained that his sister was not transparent regarding rental income, as neither the amount collected, nor its utilization was disclosed. The properties in question, PW1 asserted, were in Kawe and Oysterbay. He stated that the Tribunal summoned Patrick's sister, Agnes Rwechungura, who admitted that the complainant was indeed her relative and that the property belonged to their family. PW1 recalled that after acknowledging the family connection and ownership of the property, Agnes had explained that they had not involved Patrick in matters concerning the rent because they believed he was of unsound mind. She further informed the Tribunal that after their father's passing, she had approached the government to facilitate the sale of the house to them, following which they had acquired ownership. Page 4 of 48 PW1 testified that, in light of the complaint and its acknowledgment, the Tribunal decided that Patrick should be informed about the details of the rent. The Tribunal considered that Patrick's mental state had improved, making his involvement necessary. However, they did not wish to interfere further. He added that the Tribunal typically documented its decisions on paper, which bore the signatures of its members. The court admitted the judgment of the Ward Tribunal for Msasani, identified as Malalamiko No. 146 of 2011, dated 15/09/2011, marking it as Exhibit Pl. During cross-examination by Mr. Kipengele, PW1 admitted that he had not specified the duration of his service in the Tribunal. He opined that courts typically ensure judgments are proofread to prevent future complications. At the time, however, the Tribunal lacked its own stationery services, so handwritten judgments were taken to external service providers for typing. He further explained that before entertaining a matter, the Tribunal assessed the nature of the dispute. In this instance, the matter involved a family dispute, and he acknowledged that it was necessary for a party to establish their connection to the disputed property. He confirmed that Patrick had not produced any document linking him to the property, nor had he himself submitted any such document. Page 5 of 48 He recalled that Patrick had informed the Tribunal that one of the houses was in Oysterbay and the other in Kawe, but he had not disclosed the value of the Oysterbay property. He added that the Tribunal frequently conducted site visits (locus in quo) and, in this case, had done so. However, he disputed the claim that the Oysterbay property was valued at 500 million, asserting that it was likely worth more. He clarified that, while he was not a trained valuer, he believed the property exceeded that valuation. He also noted that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to matters valued at three million. When asked about the nature of the decision rendered by the Tribunal, PW1 maintained that what had been issued was a reconciliation report ("usuluhishi") rather than a judgment. He reiterated that he had not mentioned who had purchased the Oysterbay house or identified its owner. He conceded that the case had been opened without knowledge of the property's owner. During re-examination by Mr. Ngudungi, PW1 admitted that he was unaware of the specific requirements for proof of standing and, as a result, the Tribunal had not demanded it. PW1 reiterated that Patrick had stated he was a relative, and their names confirmed that they were siblings. He emphasized that the dispute was not about the value of the property but rather about the fair distribution of income among siblings. Page 6 of 48 He stated that the Tribunal had no reason to concern itself with the property's value, as the complaint strictly related to rental income and its distribution. He reaffirmed that the Tribunal's role was limited to issuing reconciliation reports. PW2 was Adelaide Rwechungura Msambichaka, Retired Civil Servant. During examination in Chief, PW2 acknowledged knowing Patrick Rwechungura, identifying him as her brother. According to her, they were six siblings in total, with Patrick being the third-born. She also stated that she knew Peter Mushi as well as the Defendants in the case, namely, Mushi and Agnes Rwechungura. PW2 explained that Peter Mushi had married her sister, Agnes Rwechungura, who had since passed away in April 2023. She asserted that Mushi had instituted probate proceedings without involving their family and had listed the house in Oysterbay as property belonging solely to their late sister. Furthermore, she alleged that he had falsely claimed that the deceased had a child, while in fact, she had never had any children. She stated that the probate proceedings had been conducted in Temeke, although she had only heard so. Expressing her family's grievance, PW2 claimed that when her sister had passed away, Mushi had prevented them from accessing their family home in Oysterbay. She reiterated that the house belonged to the Page 7 of 48 Rwechungura family and not solely to her late sister. Additionally, she objected to the listing of a child purported to be the deceased’s, emphasizing that her sister had no children. She mentioned that she had been informed that the child in question was named SS (name hidden as per the Chief Justice Circular on Data Protection). She affirmed that she knew her, stating that she was Mushi's daughter from another woman. PW2 provided background information on the house, stating that it had once been a government property. Their father, who had been a Magistrate, had resided there until his passing in 1980. Following his death, their mother had requested to continue living in the house with her children. Although their mother had not been a civil servant, their sister, Agnes, had begun working as a secretary in the Ministry of Works. Due to her employment status, the government had allowed her to continue residing in the house while paying rent through salary deductions. She explained that the family had continued living in the house until they had grown up and moved out. She herself had left upon getting married. Eventually, the house had remained with Agnes and Patrick, with the latter living in the servant quarters. However, she stated that Agnes had later expelled Patrick from the house. PW2 recalled that when the government had offered to sell such houses to civil servants, their sister had involved the family, explaining Page 8 of 48 that her salary was insufficient to purchase the house. The family had agreed to contribute financially, as they considered the house to belong to the Rwechungura family. Although Agnes's name had been used in the purchase documents due to her status as a civil servant, PW2 asserted, it had been a collective family effort. According to PW2, each family member had contributed a specific amount towards reducing the debt. Additionally, PW2 emphasized, their house located at Kawe had been rented out, with the rent proceeds used to further reduce the outstanding debt. She asserted that the house in Kawe had belonged to the entire family, having been built by their late mother, who had passed away in 1990. After their mother's death, they had continued collecting rent from the Kawe house and sharing the proceeds among four siblings: Agnes, Patrick, Adelaide, and Dr. Assumptha Rwechungura. She explained that initially, there had been six of them, but Angelica and Aurelia had predeceased them. PW2 stated that their contributions had been made monthly and handed over to Agnes. She mentioned that Dr. Assumptha had also passed away in December 2008. Being a medical doctor, he had once informed them that he did not expect to live beyond four years and, in anticipation of this, had opted to contribute a larger share of the funds Page 9 of 48 used to pay for the house in Oysterbay. She added that he had been working at the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) at the American Embassy in Dar-es-Salaam. Upon her passing, PW2 claimed, the family had inherited TZS 13 million for Patrick and herself, while Agnes had received a larger sum of TZS 25 million. PW2 stated that Agnes had informed her that the additional sum was intended for the house. Regarding Patrick's contributions, she explained that they had come from rental income generated by the Kawe house. The family had not been concerned with retaining formal proof of contributions, as they had shared responsibilities freely and in good faith. She recounted that after the decision to jointly purchase the house had been made, Agnes had provided her with a copy of the sale agreement. Additionally, Agnes had possessed a letter from the government permitting the family to continue residing in the house following their father's death. However, she noted that the original letter was now in Mushi's possession, as he was the administrator of the estate. This court, after noting that there was no objection from the opposing counsel, admitted the following documents as exhibits: FOMU YA MKATABA No 0135 dated 3rd July 2002, Agreement for Sale dated 23rd July 2002, BARUA YA MKATABA WA KUUZIWA Page 10 of 48 NYUMBA YA SERIKALI dated 17th June 2002, Letter Titled OMBI LA FAMILIA YA RWECHUNGURA KUBAKIA KWENYE NYUMBA YA SERIKALI, and Copy of Title Deed CT Number 122800, marking them as Exhibit P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6, respectively. PW2 concluded her testimony by asserting that the house at Oysterbay belonged to the Rwechungura family, not Agnes alone. She insisted that Sarah was not her late sister's child, as no evidence supported such a claim. She reiterated her main grievance, stating that the family sought justice, recognizing their ownership and contributions to the house, while allowing the late Agnes's portion to go to her husband. During cross-examination by Mr. Kipengele, Counsel for the Defendants, PW2 stated that she was a retired civil servant, having retired in 2023 after being employed in 1984. She mentioned the family of Rwechungura, clarifying that she was referring to the children of the late Anselm Rwechungura, who was their father. According to her, they were six siblings, and their father had been a civil servant. She testified that he was the tenant of the suit house located at Oysterbay, specifically on Plot No. 1976, Ethiopia Crescent, which at the time belonged to the government. She further stated that he passed away on 9th August 1980, after which the tenancy changed names. Following his death, their mother requested permission to continue residing in the house with the children. Page 11 of 48 PW2 testified that the letter stated that ordinarily, no such arrangement existed. However, the government had set a specific timeframe for them to remain in the house and had insisted that rent be paid. She confirmed that the rent was paid by her sister, Agnes Rwechungura. The letter was dated 1980, and she admitted that at that time, she was uncertain about who owned the house since their father had already passed away. However, she maintained that since he had been a public servant, he was the tenant of the house. She acknowledged that it was possible the tenancy had ended upon receipt of that letter. According to PW2, the successor tenant after their father was Agnes Rwechungura, and the tenancy remained in her name. She had heard that the houses later came to be known as "Ahsante Mkapa," but she could not recall the year they were offered to civil servants. She also testified that her sister got married in 2000 and was already married by 2002. PW2 confirmed that the sale agreement bore the name of Agnes Rwechungura and did not mention the family. She noted that Clause 9 of the agreement stipulated that the purchaser could not transfer the house by any means except after a period of 25 years. She pointed out that the document did not indicate how their family was involved. She further testified that they were claiming the house through Agnes, asserting that, as children of the late Mzee Rwechungura, they were her Page 12 of 48 siblings. She expressed that their interest in the house stemmed from the fact that they had contributed to its purchase and believed they were entitled to their share. According to her, they started owning the house after completing the payment of the debt in 2012, and all the contributing siblings were involved. However, she admitted that she had not produced any document to prove her contribution but had presented a document bearing Agnes's signature. She noted that Agnes had not specified any amount. She further stated that their late sister, Dr. Assumptha, had given Agnes TZS 25 million, but there was no document to prove this. She conceded that she had not produced any evidence of their monthly contributions. She acknowledged that the houses were sold to civil servants and that, at the time of the sale, she herself was a public servant. However, she admitted that she had not applied to buy the house. She also confirmed that their mother had not been a public servant and agreed that the house had been sold in Agnes Rwechungura's name, with the Title Deed issued in her name as well. She stated that the government had sold the house to the tenant who was occupying it at the time, which was Agnes Rwechungura. She reiterated that Agnes was married in 2000 and that, at the time the house was offered for sale, it still belonged to Page 13 of 48 the government. However, she asserted that when the sale process began, Agnes had not yet married. PW2 confirmed that Exhibit P4 was a letter of intention to sell the house, dated 2002. She emphasized that at that time, the house had not yet been sold, but the process was ongoing. She clarified that by then, Agnes and her husband were already married, but they had not been married before the house was purchased. She firmly rejected the suggestion that the house was a matrimonial property. She also stated that she did not know where Mushi, Agnes's husband, had been working. She denied the assertion that they had jointly bought the house. Regarding her relationship with her late sister, she described it as normal but admitted that they had once sued her over another house located at Kawe. She stated that the Kawe house had been used to pay off the debt for the Oysterbay house. She recalled seeing the title deed for the Kawe house, which bore the names of her sisters, Agnes and Aurelia. However, she disagreed with the suggestion that the house belonged to them alone. She reiterated that their father had passed away in 1980 and stated that no probate case had been conducted for his estate. She admitted that she could not confirm whether there had ever been an administrator of his estate, as she had been too young at the time. She acknowledged Page 14 of 48 that none of the plaintiffs in the present case was an administrator of his estate. However, she asserted that she was a heir to the house in Oysterbay, as it was documented in writing. She denied the suggestion that probate proceedings had been instituted to her exclusion. She clarified that she and Patrick were the plaintiffs in the case, having sued Peter Mushi and the administrator of Agnes's estate. PW2 acknowledged that Mushi was Agnes's husband and thus her administrator. However, she emphasized that she considered herself a heir to the house in Oysterbay, but not to all of Agnes's property. When asked under which legal proceedings she was claiming inheritance, she admitted that she did not know. She justified her belief that the house was a family house by stating that Agnes had been given the responsibility of raising them. PW2 testified that Exhibit P5 indicated that permission had been granted for the house to remain under Agnes's name until 31st December 1980. She stated that she was aware of a case at the Ward Tribunal but explained that her brother, Patrick, had been the one attending the proceedings, as she had been out of the region. She confirmed that she knew of the case through reading its contents. She testified that the case had been instituted in 2011, at which time Agnes was already married. She explained that her husband had not been impleaded in the case Page 15 of 48 because the house was considered the family property of the Rwechunguras. During re-examination PW2 clarified aspects of her earlier testimony. She recalled that, during cross-examination, Mr. Kipengele had been permitted to present Exhibit P5 to her. She reiterated that the letter indicated that, ordinarily, no such arrangement for continued occupation existed. However, she confirmed that the government had set a specific period for them to remain in the house, insisting that rent had to be paid. PW3 was Allen Patrick Rwechungura, 65 years old, Resident of Msigani Tegeta. During examination in chief, PW3 stated that he knew Agnes Rwechungura, identifying her as his sister and the firstborn in their family. He further mentioned that he also knew Mr. Mushi, who was married to Agnes and was thus his brother-in-law. PW3 asserted that he had deep knowledge of the house at Oysterbay and recalled having numerous conflicts with Agnes regarding the property. He explained that the primary issue arose after the passing of Dr. Asumptha when Agnes began claiming ownership of the house at Oysterbay. Consequently, she started acting unilaterally, without involving the rest of the family. As an example, he stated that she would rent out shops on the property and retain all the proceeds. Page 16 of 48 According to PW3, the house at Oysterbay belonged to the government, and their late father had occupied it as a tenant due to his position as a civil servant. He described Agnes's actions as unjust and exploitative. In response to the situation, he lodged a complaint with the Msasani Ward Tribunal, challenging her control over the family property without consulting other family members. The tribunal summoned both parties and deliberated on the matter. PW3 recalled that, following discussions, Agnes conceded that the property indeed belonged to the family. Continuing his testimony, PW3 recounted that, after acknowledging the property's familial nature, Agnes was directed by the tribunal to put her agreement in writing. She took a piece of paper, went outside, and wrote down the details of her concession. In her statement, PW3 averred, she admitted that both the house at Oysterbay and the house at Kawe were family properties inherited from their parents. She also provided an explanation regarding how the house at Kawe had been acquired. PW3 identified himself as the complainant in the matter before the Ward Tribunal, while Agnes was the respondent. He noted that his grievances were detailed on pages one and two of the document, and he confirmed that his signature appeared on page two. Page 17 of 48 According to PW3, the tribunal ultimately rendered judgment against Agnes, instructing her to comply with certain directives. Specifically, she was ordered to acknowledge the family's collective ownership of the properties and refrain from taking any actions concerning them without the involvement of other family members. However, the tribunal permitted her to engage in activities related to the properties provided that all family members agreed. PW3 mentioned that the tribunal had also issued an oral order allowing any party to appeal within 45 days, but this directive was not documented in writing. To his knowledge, Agnes neither appealed the tribunal's decision nor implemented its orders. He stated that he later returned to the tribunal to report the non-compliance, but the tribunal informed him that it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter. He was advised to proceed to the District Court of Kinondoni for execution of the decision. Seeking further assistance, PW3 narrated that he approached legal aid providers, as he had been informed that he could not engage a lawyer at the Ward Tribunal. The legal aid providers issued him a letter to initiate proceedings at the District Court. Armed with this letter, he approached the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kinondoni, where the case was heard. Page 18 of 48 During the proceedings at the District Land and Housing Tribunal, PW3 recounted that Agnes filed a chamber application seeking dismissal of the case. However, the Chairman ruled against her. One of the arguments she had advanced was that the property's high value rendered it unsuitable for adjudication by the tribunal. Additionally, she contended that, in the absence of a valuation report, the Ward Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the matter. PW3 proceeded to elaborate on the tribunal's ruling, stating that Agnes had sought orders for the tribunal to review the correctness, legality, and propriety of the Ward Tribunal's decision and to stay execution. He then prayed for the document to be admitted as an exhibit. The court admitted the ruling, marked as Exhibit P8, after the defendant's counsel raised no objection. PW3 explained that the second application sought an extension of time to appeal out of time. However, the tribunal dismissed the application with costs due to lack of merit. He noted that the decision was extracted on 10/09/2015. Despite being assigned a court broker to facilitate execution, the broker took no action. PW3 stated that it was suspected that he may have been compromised. Meanwhile, Agnes's advocate initiated another case. Page 19 of 48 PW3 identified the ruling from this subsequent case, confirming that it bore his name, the Chairman's name, and that of the opposing party. He prayed for its admission as an exhibit, which the court granted, marking it as Exhibit P9. He elaborated on the nature of the application, stating that Agnes had sought a review of the decision, arguing that she had valid grounds of appeal and should be granted leave to introduce additional evidence. She had also requested an extension of time. However, the tribunal found her application to be without merit and disallowed it. Following this ruling, PW3 recounted, the tribunal instructed PW3 to submit an application for execution. He further identified a document related to execution, which listed him as the decree holder and Agnes as the judgment debtor. He prayed for the document's admission as an exhibit, which the court granted, marking it as Exhibit PIO. According to PW3, the essence of this application was to facilitate the sale of the properties and the distribution of proceeds among the heirs. However, the District Land and Housing Tribunal rejected his request, stating that it was inconsistent with the Ward Tribunal's orders. Subsequently, Mr. Mushi filed an appeal, asserting that the properties were matrimonial assets. Page 20 of 48 Upon being shown the document in court, PW3 prayed for its admission as an exhibit. With no objection from the defendant's counsel, the court admitted the ruling as Exhibit Pll. PW3 recounted that, in this application, Mr. Mushi had sought a declaration that the properties were matrimonial assets. However, the tribunal ruled that he lacked locus standi. Since Mr. Mushi was not a party to the original case, the tribunal found that he had no right to file an application for stay of execution, and the matter was struck out. He emphasized that none of the five rulings reversed the decision of the Ward Tribunal, which remained the principal determination in the dispute. He was not aware of any other cases beyond the five rulings in question. In his view, the key decision in the matter was that of the Ward Tribunal, and he urged the court to implement it. During cross-examination, PW3 stated that he had come to court based on advice from an advocate, to whom he had presented the documents. According to him, the advocate then decided to bring the matter before the court. He clarified that Mr. Mushi was included in the case because he was the administrator of the estate of Agnes and, in his view, bore responsibility for her affairs. PW3 stated that he had sued two persons: Peter Mushi in his personal capacity and Peter Mushi in his capacity as the administrator of Agnes's Page 21 of 48 estate. He explained that he had chosen to sue Mr. Mushi at that particular time because he was the one still residing in the Oysterbay house. Additionally, he claimed that Mr. Mushi had attempted to sell the house and had committed several wrongful acts following Agnes's death. He emphasized that they had sought a stop order to prevent the sale, as Mr. Mushi had allegedly evicted them from the house and was now trying to dispose of it. He acknowledged that Mr. Mushi had claimed the house was a matrimonial home and affirmed that this was one of the reasons he had instituted the suit. Regarding the case at the Ward Tribunal, he described it as an old matter and clarified that the respondent in that case had been Agnes. He asserted that, legally, Mr. Mushi had no interest in the house. As for the execution of the decision, he stated that the District Land and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) had issued orders twice for court brokers to implement its decision, but they had failed on both occasions. Continuing with the cross-examination, PW3 confirmed that the matter before the court was Application No. 589 of 2019. He explained that he had prayed for the sale of the disputed house and the distribution of proceeds among the heirs of the late Anselm. He specified that it was the court broker who was supposed to conduct the sale. He further elaborated that Anselm was relevant to the case because Agnes had acquired her Page 22 of 48 rights through him. He described Agnes as having become a tenant of the government house through Anselm Rwechungura, which, according to him, was the foundation of his claim. He asserted that his rights originated from his contribution to purchasing the house and that his family's entitlement stemmed from the time their father had lived there. He clarified that, as a child and heir of Anselm and Victoria, his interest in the house was based on his father's previous residence. He noted that their father had since passed away and that they had instituted probate proceedings, in which he had served as the administrator of the estate. PW3 reiterated his claim that he had a rightful interest in the property due to his financial contributions towards its acquisition. He explained that they had prayed for the sale of the house so that the proceeds could be distributed among the heirs of Anselm Rwechungura. He admitted that his contribution had come from rent generated by the house at Kawe. PW3 further stated that the DLHT had determined that Agnes had no right to construct any structure on the property and that, prior to the distribution of the estate to the heirs, she had not been authorized to make any modifications. He noted that Agnes had been the appellant in that case and that it was indicated she was the administrator of the estate of their late parents. He confirmed that Agnes had served as the Page 23 of 48 administratrix of both their parents' estates but had passed away in 2023. He mentioned that they were in the process of electing a successor administratrix. He explained that he had initiated the current case due to a conflict between their family and their late sister's husband. He stated that they had pooled their contributions to purchase the Oysterbay house and that, to the best of his knowledge, the sellers had been the government. He recalled that the government had addressed its correspondence to Agnes and affirmed that she was part of their family, though she also had her own family. He acknowledged that no letter explicitly indicated that the government had sold the house to Anselm's family, as the communication had been directed to Agnes. PW3 stated that the government had offered houses to tenants during President Mkapa's administration but could not recall the exact year, suggesting it might have been in 2002. He conceded that by that time, his sister had already been married. He further admitted that prior to the offer for sale, no one in their family had considered owning the house since it was government property. He also acknowledged that none of them had made direct payments to the government for the purchase of the house. He confirmed that Agnes's salary had been deducted to cover rent as she was a civil servant. He also conceded that from 1980 to Page 24 of 48 2002, when the house was eventually offered for sale, none of them had contributed towards the payment of rent. Upon being shown exhibit Pl, PW3 described it as a letter of advice. He acknowledged that the Ward Tribunal had delivered a judgment but admitted that PW1 had previously stated otherwise. However, he maintained that, in his view, the document in question was indeed a judgment. He confirmed that it was the same document he was holding and acknowledged that it did not bear the title "Judgment." He noted that it contained annotations and stated that it had been in that form when he received it. He asserted that he had not questioned why it contained annotation marks and confirmed that he had presented the document before higher courts in that state. He maintained that he believed it had been appropriate to use it that way and saw no necessity for the maker to sign against the annotated parts. He disagreed with the suggestion that the document had been tampered with. PW3 stated that their father had owned the house while serving as a civil servant but had passed away in 1980. He noted that the houses were offered for sale in 2002, but before that, their father had merely been a tenant, and a tenant did not own a house. He asserted that they had only become owners following the Ward Tribunal's judgment, as advised by Page 25 of 48 his lawyer. He admitted that before that decision, they had not considered themselves owners. PW3 explained that all these decisions had been made while his sister was married and while he himself had a wife at home. However, he maintained that Mushi had no interest in the house, as he was merely part of the marriage but not a member of their family. He recalled that the tribunal's decision had been delivered on 15/09/2011. He further stated that their mother, Victoria, had passed away in 1990, at which time the government had not yet offered the houses for sale. Likewise, he confirmed that their father had died in 1980, before the offer had been made. He stated that at the Ward Tribunal, he had raised concerns regarding the distribution of income generated from the houses and had sought explanations. He asserted that Agnes had admitted that the property had belonged to their parents and reiterated that family contributions were significant in determining ownership. During re-examination, PW3 stated that their grievance stemmed from Agnes's claim of exclusive ownership of the house, which had occurred prior to the tribunal's decision. He reiterated that his complaint had been about the income generated from the house and maintained that their ownership had been established through the judgment, pointing to a directive on its last page. He added that his late sister had conceded to Page 26 of 48 their collective contributions towards purchasing the house, including using rent from the Kawe house. He admitted that he lacked expertise in the drafting of judgments and affidavits. He confirmed that the government's offer had been addressed solely to Agnes. He also stated that he had limited knowledge of matrimonial property law and was uncertain about the distinction between a matrimonial home and other forms of ownership. Finally, he reiterated that he had sued because he had contributed towards purchasing the house. The plaintiffs' case was then concluded and followed with the Defendant's case as summarized bellow: The first Defendants' witness (herein after DW1) was Peter Joseph Mushi, 66 years old Dealer in Real Estate and Resident of Oysterbay, Dar-es-Salaam. During examination in chief, DW1 stated that he resided in Oysterbay, Winding Avenue/Ethiopian Crescent No. 10, where he had lived for 25 years. He explained that he had previously lived there with his late wife, Agnes Regina Rwechungura, who passed away on April 17, 2023. He mentioned that he was engaged in real estate dealings in Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda. Prior to that, he had been a civil servant and later joined the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission, where he served for a total of 42 years, including 16 years with the UN. Page 27 of 48 He further testified that he married his late wife, Agnes, on November 20, 1.996, at Vingunguti Catholic Parish while he was working at the Parliament in Dodoma. At that time, he resided at Area D Block Bl, formerly NSSF houses. He recounted that in 2002, the government under President Mkapa. through the Cabinet, decided to sell government houses to tenants. He and his wife deliberated on whether to purchase the house in Dodoma or the one in Oysterbay, ultimately choosing the latter. DW1 stated that they complied with the procedures set by the Tanzania Building Agency (TBA), the then-owner of the houses, by completing the required forms and making instalment payments. DW1 asserted that the house was sold to them for 27 million Tanzanian shillings. He added that in 2012, his wife obtained a 34-million-shilling loan from PSSF, which was used to finalize the payments, leading to the issuance of a certificate of title in 2013. DW1 asserted that before they received the title, several legal disputes had been initiated by his wife's siblings, Grace and Patrick. He recalled that Patrick initially lived with them but was eventually evicted by a court order due to his destructive behavior, which included cutting down banana trees and verbally abusing them at night. He stated that shortly afterward, in November 2022, his wife fell ill with pancreatic cancer, a condition that Page 28 of 48 persisted for approximately seven months until she passed away on April 17, 2023, at 9:40 a.m. He recounted that even before his wife's passing, the plaintiff, Adelaide, had arrived at their home accompanied by three police officers and her husband, Joseph Msambichaka. DW1 described his reaction as one of fury when the officers accused him of locking up his wife and resorting to witchcraft for treatment. He claimed that he had just returned from fetching her medication when his wife inquired why Adelaide did not greet him, to which she did not respond. Three days later, he received a court summons indicating that Adelaide had sued her sister. He attended court on behalf of his wife, who was critically ill at the time. The judge granted an adjournment, but unfortunately, his wife passed away before the matter could proceed. Following his wife's death, DW1 made burial arrangements with the help of his relatives and friends, while the plaintiff and her family did nothing. He noted that Adelaide attended the burial in Moshi but remained distant. On the day of the burial, she performed the symbolic act of throwing sand and then left with her husband. After completing the burial, DW1 returned to Dar es Salaam. He stated that during a meeting held in Moshi prior to his departure, he was appointed administrator of his late wife's estate. Subsequently, he proceeded with the process at the IJC. On Page 29 of 48 the day of the ruling, his younger brother-in-law, Patrick, was present and was asked if he had any objections. Patrick reportedly stated that he supported DWl's appointment as administrator. However, three days later, DW1 was served with three lawsuits, one concerning a house his late wife had sold, and another regarding the Oysterbay house. He noted that one of the cases had been finalized, leaving only the present one. Regarding the case filed against his wife at the Ward Tribunal, DW1 expressed surprise, arguing that Agnes was his lawful wife and should not have been sued as if she were unmarried. He further questioned the tribunal's jurisdiction over a titled property, noting that it lacked authority over properties exceeding three million Tanzanian shillings in value. He estimated the value of the Oysterbay house at three billion Tanzanian shillings. He emphasized that at the time of the tribunal's proceedings in 2011, they had not yet completed the purchase, and the property was still under TBA ownership. DW1 contended that it was illogical for his wife to have been sued over a house they had not yet fully acquired, and he questioned why he, as her husband, had not been involved. He asserted that he did not recognize the tribunal's decision, claiming it was illegal and rendered without jurisdiction since the property was still government-owned. Page 30 of 48 DW1 further stated that government policy prohibited couples from purchasing more than one government house. He insisted that there had never been any family disputes over the Oysterbay house, as he had been financially capable of completing the purchase through a loan. He claimed that his in-laws had never welcomed him into their homes and had not contributed to the house acquisition. He noted that his wife had earned a good salary, having served as a personal assistant and later a housekeeper for former President Mwalimu Nyerere. Her official title was "Msaidizi wa Viongozi Wakuu," and she was capable of securing loans independently. He further testified that his in-laws had made no financial contributions during the funeral. He reiterated that the plaintiff attended the burial in Moshi but played no active role in the arrangements. He disclosed that he had children from his first marriage and that when he married Agnes, his daughter SS was three years old. He stated that Agnes raised SS, who later became an Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania. He confirmed that the title deed bore the name of his late wife, Agnes Regina Rwechungura. During cross-examination by Mr. Ngudungi, Advocate, DW1 acknowledged that, as per the law, the name on the title deed indicated ownership. However, he insisted that the house was matrimonial property Page 31 of 48 and that personal arrangements often dictated how properties were registered. He admitted that he had not registered his interest in the suit property with the Registrar. He affirmed that they had acquired the house in March 2013 and acknowledged the existence of a sale agreement, though he could not recall the exact date. He stated that although the government permitted the sale of houses in 2002, ownership was only secured upon full payment of the debt. When questioned about conflicts within the family, DW1 explained that he had omitted details regarding police involvement and other disputes from his WSD because such conflicts were commonplace. He insisted that his family and his in-laws had not spoken for 24 years. When asked about the absence of his name in documents listing heirs, he asserted that he did not know why it was omitted but maintained that he and his wife were married at the time. During re-examination, DW1 reiterated that he and his wife had lawfully acquired the house and that no contributions were made by any relatives. He maintained that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the dispute and that his late wife had successfully appealed against its decision. He concluded by asserting that the current legal proceedings were baseless, as his wife had lawfully acquired the property through government procedures and financial means independent of her family. Page 32 of 48 DW2 was Honory Elias Maliwa, Civil Servant. During examination in chief, DW2 stated that he worked with the Tanzania Building Agency (TBA) in the Real Estate Department, specifically in public housing, which comprised houses inhabited by civil servants. He mentioned that he had been in that department for at least 15 years. Referring to House No. 1976 Ethiopia/Crescent, he clarified that, to their knowledge, it was known as House Number 7/8 Ethiopia Crescent. It had initially been a government house, and when the government began selling such houses to tenant staff, it was occupied by a civil servant named Agnes Regina Rwechungura. DW2 recalled that the house had been sold to her in May 2002, when the government initiated the sale of houses to civil servants. According to him, the sale had been completed after ten years, as reflected in the contract, with the final payment being made in 2012. He asserted that, to his knowledge, no one had assisted her in paying for the house, as she used to come in person to make the payments. He emphasized that the house had been offered for sale to its occupant, who was a civil servant working as a housekeeper. He further explained that the government had not allowed the sale of houses to non-public servants and that one of the conditions for purchase was that the public servant must have been residing in the same house. Page 33 of 48 Upon being shown Exhibit P3, DW2 identified it as a sales agreement indicating that the government had decided to sell the house to Agnes Regina Rwechungura. He observed that the agreement bore only her name, as she was the sole purchaser. He was then shown Exhibit P2, which he identified as a form of agreement that accompanied the sales agreement. He confirmed that he had the original agreement in the file. He explained that the document contained the names of heirs, namely Redempta and Adelaide Rwechungura, and, in his understanding, those names had been included in case the buyer passed away before completing payment. He stated that this was an instruction from the seller. Upon being shown Exhibit P4, DW2 identified it as a letter informing the buyer that the offer had been granted. He noted that the letter had specified that the contract was valid for ten years and had also indicated the relevant bank account number. During cross-examination, DW2 acknowledged that the sale agreement did not indicate the source of the money used for the purchase. He conceded that the agreement did not prohibit the buyer from obtaining money from her husband or any other source and that the contract would not be invalidated if payments had been made using funds from another source. Page 34 of 48 When presented with another document, which counsel referred to as the "3rd paper" (or "4th page"), DW2 confirmed that, according to that document, the respondent had taken an oath stating that the house at O/Bay had been paid for using money obtained from the house in Kawe. He noted that the document suggested the house was a family property. However, he maintained that, as TBA, they were not concerned with family matters but only with ensuring that payments were completed. Once payment was finalized, they would issue a letter of appreciation and request for a certificate. He reiterated that, if the buyer had purchased the house for her daughter, TBA would not be concerned with such details. DW2 further clarified that the form in question had been filled out by the late Agnes Regina Rwechungura and that TBA had not been involved in its completion. He pointed out that the form did not define the meaning of heirs and that no such definition appeared in the contract either. He explained that his earlier definition had been based on instructions that he did not have in his possession. He added that, had anything happened, TBA would have contacted the listed heirs to settle any outstanding debts, after which the family would have had to initiate probate proceedings. He emphasized that this was a family matter. He also noted that the form did not contain the name of Page 35 of 48 Mr. Mushi and stated that TBA had no knowledge of the reason for his exclusion. DW2 clarified that the file in his possession contained contracts. He affirmed that TBA had never received any payment from Mr. Mushi, stating that all payments had been made by Regina. He emphasized that he did not personally know Mr. Mushi and had never interacted with him, questioning how he could have spoken to someone he did not know. During re-examination, DW2 was presented with Exhibit Pl. After reviewing a document, he reiterated that, in his understanding, the house had been sold to a public servant who had been residing in the house. The 3rd Defendant's Witness (DW3) was Tumaini Godfrey Uledi, Benefits Officer with the PSSF [Public Service Social Security Fund]. During examination in chief, DW3 stated that he was a Benefits Officer with the Public Service Social Security Fund (PSSF), responsible for paying benefits to public servants after retirement. He had held this position for 16 years. He explained that the PSSF was established on August 1, 2018, through Act No. 2 of 2018, which repealed the laws that had previously established the PSPF, PPF, GPF, and LAPF. DW3 affirmed that he knew Agnes Regina Rwechungura, stating that she had been a member of the PSPF due to her status as a public servant. Upon being shown Exhibit P3, DW3 identified it as the contract under Page 36 of 48 which the deceased had obtained a housing loan. He noted that the house in question was referred to in paragraph 1 of the contract as "Ethiopia Crescent House No. 7/8" and that the loan amount had been TZS 34,000,000/=. He further explained that upon a member's retirement, the fund deducted the outstanding loan amount from the retirement benefits, and as a result, the deceased no longer owed any money to the fund. To substantiate his employment with the PSSF, he presented his identification card, which was admitted as an exhibit. During cross-examination, DW3 admitted that he had not brought any form of identification for Agnes Rwechungura nor the loan file. However, he maintained that he had been aware of the type of evidence required from him in the case. No re-examination was conducted. After DW3's testimony concluded, Mr. Kipengele prayed to close the defense case, and Ms. Fabian raised no objection. Having carefully evaluated the evidence as I will explain later, it came to my knowledge that the issue of a sibling as an heir had surfaced so strongly throughout the proceedings. I employed Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code to task Counsel to enlighten me on the legal status of a sibling listed as an heir especially by a civil servant in his or her official declarations. The next part of this judgment summarises submissions by Counsel on the matter. Page 37 of 48 Mr. Ngudungi, Counsel for the Plaintiffs, responded to the legal issue raised suo motu by the court, acknowledging that the matter had been scheduled for judgment when the court directed the parties to address a point of law concerning the concept of an heir as used in official documents in Tanzania. The court had posed several questions, including whether the designation of an heir in such documents created any legal or equitable rights or was merely a tradition without legal force, the duration of heirship, and whether such a right was transferable. In his submission, Mr. Ngudungi began by defining the term "heir" with reference to legal sources. He cited a general definition describing an heir as one who acquires property upon another's death based on the rules of descent and distribution. He further referred to Black's Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), which defined an heir as a person entitled, under the law of intestacy, to receive an intestate decedent's property. Additionally, he noted the definition of an heir under civil law as a person who succeeds to the rights and estate of a decedent, either by the decedent's act or by operation of law. Drawing from these definitions, Mr. Ngudungi argued that the term "heir" encompassed any individual who acquired property upon the death of another, with inheritance being governed by rules of descent and distribution. He contended that in the present case, it was an undisputed Page 38 of 48 fact that the deceased, Agness Regina Rwechungura, had neither biological nor legal children with the 1st Defendant. He explained that, under Tanzanian inheritance and succession laws, the process involved transferring the rights, assets, and obligations of a deceased individual to their heirs or beneficiaries. He maintained that, in this case, the deceased had acknowledged the interest of her biological sisters in her properties and had, therefore, included them in her official documents, specifically in the purchase form for the disputed house. Furthermore, she had named the 2nd Plaintiff and the late Dr. Assumpta Devota Rwechungura in her will, as evidenced by annexure NCA-1 submitted to the court. Mr. Ngudungi asserted that this reflected the deceased's wishes, particularly given that she was aware that the disputed land—Plot No. 1976 with CT No. 122800, Crescent Area, Oysterbay—was not her sole personal property but was jointly owned by her blood relatives, including the Plaintiffs. He submitted that the effect of naming heirs in official documents was to safeguard the deceased's interests by formally designating the individuals she wished to benefit from her estate. He further argued that the inclusion of the deceased's blood relatives as her heirs in official forms, such as those issued by the Tanzania Building Agency, demonstrated her intent. Additionally, he pointed out that the Page 39 of 48 Plaintiffs had testified that the deceased had declared the disputed land to also belong to them, thereby reinforcing their claim to the property. Based on this reasoning, Mr. Ngudungi contended that the Plaintiffs' interests should be recognized both by the court and the Tanzania Building Agency. He emphasized that their rights as heirs did not change unless the purchaser, in this case, the deceased Agness Regina Rwechungura, had taken steps to remove them, which she had never done. Consequently, he argued that the Plaintiffs remained the rightful beneficiaries of the disputed property. In conclusion, Mr. Ngudungi humbly prayed for the court to consider the names listed by the deceased as her rightful heirs to the property in dispute. Mr. Kipengele, Counsel for the Defendant, submitted on the legal issue raised suo motu by the Court, arguing that the plaintiffs' claim over the disputed property was based on different and inconsistent grounds. He noted that the plaintiffs asserted they had contributed to the purchase of the property by making instalment payments, as testified by PW2. Additionally, they contended that the house formed part of the estate of their late father, Anselm Eddy Rwechungura, who passed away in 1980. Furthermore, they claimed to be heirs of the second defendant solely because their names appeared in one of the forms related to the purchase Page 40 of 48 of the property. He, therefore, sought to address the effect of such a designation in the said form. Mr. Kipengele submitted that DW2, Honory Elias Maliwa, a representative from the Tanzania Building Agency, testified that the form in question was completed by the second defendant herself. He explained that the names written in the form as heirs were intended solely for administrative purposes—to designate contact persons in case any issues arose during the installment payments for the property. Once the installments were fully paid, a certificate of title was issued to the purchaser, rendering the form irrelevant. Thus, the inclusion of names in the document had no legal significance beyond that initial administrative purpose. Regarding the legal concept of an heir, Mr. Kipengele stated that a person could only be recognized as an heir either through a valid will left by the deceased or under the rules of intestacy. He elaborated that, generally, a legally recognized heir is entitled to inherit part or all of a deceased person's estate in the absence of a valid will. The law typically prioritizes the surviving spouse, followed by children, parents, siblings, and, in their absence, more distant relatives. Turning to the present case, Mr. Kipengele pointed out that at the time the deceased purchased the disputed house, she was married to the first Page 41 of 48 defendant. During that transaction, she mentioned the second plaintiff and the late Dr. Assumpta Devota Rwechungura as heirs but did not include the first plaintiff in the contract form (Exhibit P2) issued by the Building Agency. He questioned, therefore, what legal claim the first plaintiff had over the disputed property. He contended that the second defendant had no legal right to designate her relatives as heirs in a property that served as her matrimonial home with the first defendant. He asserted that a spouse is entitled to an interest in jointly owned matrimonial property, and the second defendant could only dispose of property acquired solely through her efforts if it bore no interest of the first defendant. He referred to section 46, Explanation 1, of the Indian Succession Act of 1865 to support his argument. Mr. Kipengele further argued that merely mentioning the names of the second plaintiff and Dr. Assumpta Devota Rwechungura in Exhibit P2 did not amount to a valid will. He emphasized that inheritance under the law follows only two paths: testate or intestate succession. If a deceased person left a valid will, it would govern the distribution of their estate; otherwise, the rules of intestacy would apply. He maintained that since the deceased did not die testate, merely listing names in a purchase form could not be construed as a valid testamentary disposition. Page 42 of 48 He urged the Court to consider whether the inclusion of names in Exhibit P2 had any legal effect on inheritance. He noted that the second defendant had died intestate and that letters of administration had already been granted to the first defendant, her husband, in Probate and Administration Cause No. 622 of 2023. In that probate matter, the plaintiffs were not recognized as heirs, nor were the individuals mentioned in Exhibit P2 designated as heirs in the probate proceedings. Mr. Kipengele asserted that if the plaintiffs sought recognition as heirs of the second defendant, they should have pursued their claim within Probate and Administration Cause No. 622 of 2023, rather than in this land case. He emphasized that the probate proceedings were determinative in recognizing heirs, and this Court was bound by the outcome of that case. He added that even if the plaintiffs believed Exhibit P2 amounted to a will, they still had an avenue to challenge the probate proceedings by asserting that the deceased had died testate. The proper legal forum to determine the validity of such a claim would have been the probate case, not the present land dispute. Concluding his submissions, Mr. Kipengele reiterated that inheritance rights were limited to the deceased's spouse and legal relatives, with a surviving spouse typically receiving the largest share of the estate or even Page 43 of 48 the entirety of it in the absence of children. He maintained that any determination regarding heirs and the legal effect of Exhibit P2 should have been addressed in Probate and Administration Cause No. 622 of 2023. He, therefore, submitted that this land case was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate such matters. I have dispassionately considered the rival positions. I have also carefully examined the Court records including exhibits presented and admitted as evidence. My task is now to determine the merits of the case. I will be guided by the following pointers drawn from the issues raised by Counsel One: Plaintiffs' Alleged Contribution to the Purchase Price. Two: The Claim that the House Forms Part of Their Late Father's Estate. Three: On the Legal Effect of Their Names Being Included in the Purchase Form. Four: On Whether This Court Has Jurisdiction to Determine Heirship. Five: On Whether the Mentioning of Names in Exhibit P2 Amounts to a Will. The plaintiffs contend that they contributed financially to the purchase of the disputed property. In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies upon the party who asserts a fact. Under section 110 of the Evidence Act [Cap 6 R.E. 2019], he who alleges must prove. However, it is my finding that the Plaintiffs have failed to provide cogent and persuasive evidence to substantiate this claim. Page 44 of 48 Mere assertions, unsupported by documentary proof such as payment receipts, bank transactions, or agreements, do not suffice to establish a legal interest in the property. Even if the plaintiffs had made financial contributions towards its acquisition, such contributions alone would not automatically confer ownership rights in the absence of a clear and binding agreement reflecting such intent. On the Claim that the House Forms Part of Their Late Father's Estate, the plaintiffs further assert that the disputed house should be considered part of the estate of their late father, Anselm Eddy Rwechungura. The Court finds this assertion untenable. The evidence before the Court, particularly Exhibit DI (the sale agreement), clearly establishes that the house was purchased by the second defendant and not by the plaintiffs' father. To succeed in their claim, the plaintiffs needed to show a legal connection between the deceased's estate and the property in question. However, no such nexus has been established. The law requires claimants to provide solid proof when asserting rights over an estate. Since there is no evidence indicating that the second defendant purchased it on behalf of the estate, this claim is baseless and devoid of merit. On the Legal Effect of Their Names Being Included in the purchase form, the plaintiffs have placed significant reliance on the fact Page 45 of 48 that their names were included in a purchase-related document, Exhibit P2. They contend that this serves as proof of their inheritance rights. However, upon review of the evidence, I am persuaded by the testimony of DW2, who clarified that the inclusion of the plaintiffs' names in the document was purely for administrative purposes and did not confer any legal ownership or inheritance rights. Under Tanzanian succession law, inheritance rights arise either through a valid will (testate succession) or through statutory intestacy rules. There is no evidence before this Court that the second defendant executed a valid will designating the plaintiffs as beneficiaries of the property. Consequently, the distribution of the deceased's estate must be determined according to the laws governing intestate succession. This Court also takes judicial notice of Probate and Administration Cause No. 622 of 2023, in which the first defendant was granted letters of administration over the estate. The probate court did not recognize the plaintiffs as heirs to the disputed house. If the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with that determination, their proper recourse was to challenge the probate decision rather than institute a land dispute. On Whether This Court Has Jurisdiction to Determine Heirship, the defendants correctly argued that issues of heirship fall within the jurisdiction of the probate and administration court. This Court concurs. Page 46 of 48 The plaintiffs' attempt to litigate inheritance matters under the guise of a land dispute is misplaced. Matters of succession and heirship must be determined in probate proceedings, and this Court cannot usurp that jurisdiction. If the plaintiffs believed that they were rightful heirs entitled to a share of the deceased's estate, they ought to have pursued their claims through appropriate probate proceedings by seeking revocation or variation of the grant issued in Probate and Administration Cause No. 622 of 2023. Lastly, on whether the Mentioning of Names in Exhibit P2 Amounts to a Will I must admit that this issue had exercised my mind a bit. I thank Counsel for their submissions on the issue that broaden my understanding of this practice in our country practiced by many employees whether public or from the private sector. It is unfortunate that being listed as a heir of your sibling in a document does not in itself confer any inheritance rights. Under Tanzanian succession law, a will must comply with formal legal requirements, including proper execution and attestation. A mere mention of names in a contractual form does not meet the requirements of a valid testamentary disposition. There is no evidence that the document was intended to serve as a will, nor does it bear the essential elements of a Page 47 of 48 legally recognized testamentary instrument. Thus, the plaintiffs' contention is legally unsound. In the upshot, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their claims on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed. Since the suit involved siblings, albeit with inclusion of a brother-in law, I make no order as to costs. Each party to bear their own cost. E. I. LALTAIKA JUDGE 28/2/2025 Court: Judgment delivered in Court Chambers in the presence of Ms. Benadetha Fabian, learned Advocate, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Mr. Pius Simba Kipengele, learned Advocate, Counsel for the Defendants and the Plaintiffs. Page 48 of 48