PHARES RULING

PHARES RULING

The applicant was not heard in the appellate proceedings that revoked his appointment, violating the right to be heard. However, as a grandchild, he has no direct right to inherit from the estate of his grandfather, and the inclusion or exclusion of properties was properly addressed by the deceased and prior administrator. Clan minutes are not legally binding. The application lacks merit and is dismissed.

Citation
PHARES RULING
Parties
Applicant: Phares John; 1st Respondent: Tabitha Phares; 2nd Respondent: Eunice John
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Revision / Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Be Heard, Appointment of Administrator, Heirship Rights, Distribution of Estate
Source Language
English
Probate and Administration Civil Procedure Right to Be Heard Appointment of Administrator Heirship Rights Distribution of Estate

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phares John

Applicant

Tabitha Phares

1st Respondent

Eunice John

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Revision / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard in the appellate proceedings affecting his appointment as co-administrator
  2. 2 Whether grandchildren have a right to inherit directly from the estate of their grandfather
  3. 3 Whether clan minutes are legally binding in probate matters

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not heard in the appellate proceedings that revoked his appointment, violating the right to be heard. However, as a grandchild, he has no direct right to inherit from the estate of his grandfather, and the inclusion or exclusion of properties was properly addressed by the deceased and prior administrator. Clan minutes are not legally binding. The application lacks merit and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Decision of the first appellate court upheld
  • No order as to costs