Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

20140520 TZHC Arusha

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Only those with blood ties to the deceased are entitled to inherit in intestate succession; upbringing alone does not confer inheritance rights.

Court disposition

Application granted with costs.

Orders

  • Declared Ramadhani Maabadi, Mohamed Maabadi, Hamadi Maabadi, Twaha Maabadi, Halima Maabadi, Tausi Maabadi, Hawa Moshi Waida (Wayda), Ashura Moshi Waida (Wayda), Hassani Moshi Waida (Wayda), and Nuru Moshi Waida (Wayda) as lawful beneficiaries/heirs of the estate of the late Nina Omari.
  • Declared Maka Serafini and Shibesh Abebe are not beneficiaries/heirs to the estate of the late Nina Omari.
  • Vacated requirement for written consent of two beneficiaries to price; price to be controlled by market price.
  • Directed administrator (4th respondent) to immediately sell Plot No.2 Block 22, Kaloleni, Arusha Municipality and distribute proceeds to beneficiaries.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ramadhani Maabadi

Applicant

Hamadi Maabadi

Applicant

Maka Serafini

Respondent

Shibesh Abebe

Respondent

Mohamed Maabadi

Respondent

Ezra Joshua Mwaluko

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Plot Number: 2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicants argued that they and other named individuals are blood relatives of the deceased and thus lawful heirs, while the 1st and 2nd respondents have no blood ties and should not inherit.
Respondent
1st respondent claimed to have been brought up by the deceased but did not demonstrate blood relationship; 4th respondent did not oppose the application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's reasoning and general principles of intestate succession

    Inheritance rights are based on blood ties unless a will provides otherwise.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Only those with blood ties to the deceased are entitled to inherit in intestate succession; upbringing alone does not confer inheritance rights.

Obiter and limits

  • Requirement for written consent of two beneficiaries to the price under the agreement for amicable settlement is vacated; price to be controlled by market price.

Court disposition

Application granted with costs.

  • Declared Ramadhani Maabadi, Mohamed Maabadi, Hamadi Maabadi, Twaha Maabadi, Halima Maabadi, Tausi Maabadi, Hawa Moshi Waida (Wayda), Ashura Moshi Waida (Wayda), Hassani Moshi Waida (Wayda), and Nuru Moshi Waida (Wayda) as lawful beneficiaries/heirs of the estate of the late Nina Omari.
  • Declared Maka Serafini and Shibesh Abebe are not beneficiaries/heirs to the estate of the late Nina Omari.
  • Vacated requirement for written consent of two beneficiaries to price; price to be controlled by market price.
  • Directed administrator (4th respondent) to immediately sell Plot No.2 Block 22, Kaloleni, Arusha Municipality and distribute proceeds to beneficiaries.

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 20 May 2014

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 20 May 2014

20140520 TZHC Arusha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA.- MISC.CIVIL.APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2013 (C/F High Court of Tanzania at Arusha Probate and Administration Cause No. 10 of 2013) 1.RAMADHANI MAABADI } 2. HAMADI MAABADI ........................................... ·....... APPLICANTS Versus 1. MAKA SERAFINI 2. SHIBESH ABEBE 3. MOHAMED MAABADI ..•..................................... RES PON DENTS 4. EZRA JOSHUA MWALUKO RULING: F.H. MASSENGI,J. Applicants Ramadhani Maabadi and Hamadi Maabadi herein and afcer .reffered as 1st and 2nd applicant's respectively are applying for the following orders:- 1. An order for a direction that in administration of the estate of the deceased NINA OMARII by the administrator, the following persons are beneficiaries/heirs entitled to a share in the estate namely RAMADHANI MAABADI, HAMADI MAABADI, TWAHA MAABADI, HALIMA MAABADI, TAUSI MAABADI, HAWA MOSH WAIDA(WAYDA), ASHURA MOSHI, WAI.DA (WAYDA), HASAN! MOSHI WAI.DA (WAYDA) and NURU MOSHI WAIDA (WAYDA).

2. An order for direction that the first and 2nd respondents namely MAKA SERAFINI and SHIBESH ABEBE are. not beneficiaries/heirs to_ the estate of the deceased NINA OMARI because they don't have any blood ties with the deceased NINA OMAR!. . 1 --d -; ~:.3.I :1 --7 they have demonstrated that they have demonstrated that they have blood relationship with the peceased, I totally agree with him as he has submitted that in the applic~nt's submissions page 3 they have clearly demonstrated as to how they are blood related to the deceased which is traced to originated from two sisters from the same father and mother and the named persons are the children of the two blood sisters. And therefore order and direct that to RAMADHANI MAABDAI, MOHAMED MAABADI, HAMADI MAABADI, lWAHA MAABADI, HALIMA MAABADI, TAUSI MAABADI, HAWA MOSHI WAIDA(WAYDA), ASHURA MOSHI WAIDA(WAYDA, HASSANI MOSHI WAIDA (WAYDA) and NURU MOSHI WAIDA (WAYDA), and 3rd respondent MOHAMED MAABADI are the lawful beneficiaries/heirs of the estate of the late NINA OMARI through blood ties. On the second issue that is 1st respondent Maka Serafini and 2nd respondent Shibesh Abebe are not beneficiaries/heirs of the estate of the late NINA OMARI as they don't have any blood ties, 1st respondent in her counter affidavit demonstrate that' he was brought up with the deceased since his infancy, that alone does not give him the right to

inherent as it is blood ties which gives right to inheritance whose deceased have left a will to that effect I don't agree with the . 4th respondents submission who didn't oppose the application that the deceased did intestate as she. did left any will behind. Since the 1st and 2nd respondent have not prove to have any blood ties with the deceased only that 1st respondent was brought up by the deceased his rights if any ceased on the day when deceased passed away. I therefore direct that 1st respondent MAKA SERAFINI and 2nd respondent SHIBESH ABEBE are not beneficiaries/heirs to the estate of the late NINA OMAR!. In regard to the issue that th.is court to give directions that the requireme~t- of a written consent of the two beneficiaries to the price under paragraph 6 of the Agreement for amicable settlement be dispensed ,with effecting the, sale of t~e property/asset of the estate of 3 ·. NINA OMAR! that is Plot No,2 Block 22; Kaloleni, .Arusha Municipality, after considering the circumstances of this application,,_ I hereby direct . that requirei:nent for written consent . bf two beneficiaries to price is hereby vacated and the price to be controlled by the market price. : · I also direct the administrator who the applicant are not opposing to administrator the estate in issue 4th respondent so immediately sale the property on Plot No.2 Block 22,Kalolen I Area Arusha Municipality and have the proceeds there of distributed to the beneficiari~s of the estate of the late NINA OMAR!. The application is hereby granted with costs. (Sgd) F.H. fy1ASSENGI

JUDGE 20/5/2014 . ; . .;,. Delivered court this 20th May 2014 in presence of applicant and in absence of the respondents. (Sgd) F.H. MASSENGI

JUDGE 20/5/2014 . . I here9y· . . ~ 1:- ,._ be a true copy of the original. .,.~~~!/:. ~ .L ,,! ' \ ·. . . .rrt'"~ ,, ~ . "' ,._,,, ::_;."{: , ¢Rl~EGISTRA~ ,~..,.,·\.~::} · • , . __ . / . ARUSHA ~ J?J1( JLj 1 4

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.