CIVIL NO 17671 of 2024 RICHARD SHOO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA I TEMEKE SUB-REGISTRY (ONE-STOP JUDICIAL CENTRE) AT TEMEKE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17671 OF 2024 I (Arising from the decision of the District Court of Temeke, One Stop Judicial Centre at Temeke in Probate Appeal No. 55 of2023) RICHARD SHOO (As Administrator of the Estate ofthe\Late Christine Sepeku)............ ............................................. APPELLANT VERSUS BERNADO MATHIAS SEPEKU (As Administrator of the Estate of the Late Julius Sepeku)................................... .............. ................. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 18th July & 22nd November, 2024 BARTHY, J.: The appellant, Richard Shoo (as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Christine Sepeku), being aggrieved by the (decision of the District Court of Temeke, One Stop Judicial Centre at Temeke in Probate Appeal No. 55 of 2023, delivered on 5th July 2024, appeals to this court on the following grounds: । 1. That the learned magistrate erred in iaw and fact by holding that the appellant had no interest in the estate of the fate ' Julius Sepeku. i 2 That the /earned magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the estate of the fate Julius Sepeku did not pass to Christine Sepeku because she did not file an Inventory and : account of the estate. 3.1 That the learned magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the appellant is not entitled to administer the estate of late Julius Sepeku. 4.' That the learned magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the respondent has an interest in the estate of the late ■ Julius Sepeku without considering the current status of the said estate. 5. That the learned magistrate erred in iaw and fact for not considering all issues raised by the appellant. ■ Wherefore, the appellant prays for the appeal to be allowed, the decisions of the primary court (the trial court) and the district court (the first appellate court) to be quashed, and for the appellant to be appointed as the administrator of the deceased's estate. Additionally, the appellant seeks any other relief deemed fit and just to be granted by this court. The hearing of this matter proceeded by way of written submissions, with!both parties duly represented. The appellant was represented by 2 learned counsel Mr. Constantino Kakula, while the respondent was represented by learned counsel Mr. Deogratius Alex Butawantemi. During the course of hearing this appeal, the court identified a pertinent issue that required the parties' attention before composing its judgment. Consequently, the court, acting suo motu, summoned the parties to address the issue of whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter pertaining to the letters of administration for a Christian of the late Julius Sepeku. Both parties, through their respective representatives, appeared before this court to address the issue raised. Mr. Kakula, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the records of the trial court indicate that the late Julius Sepeku and his wife, Christine Sepeku, contracted a Christian marriage, as evidenced by the marriage certificate presented when Christine filed for letters of administration. He further argued that the records demonstrate that both the families of Julius and Christine appeared before the trial court and that neither party disputed that the couple adhered to Christian principles in their lifestyle. Mr. Kakula emphasized that the couple lived in accordance with Christian faith, as corroborated by the undisputed submissions of both families. Consequently, he argued that under the provisions of Rule 1(1) 3 of the 5th Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act, tap. 11 R.E. 2019, (the Magistrates' Courts Act) the primary court lacked jurisdiction. He explained that this provision confers jurisdiction on primary courts only in matters governed by Islamic or customary law, which did not apply to the estate of a Christian. 'Mr. Butawantemi, learned counsel for the respondent, adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Kakula and further elaborated that the late Julius Sepeku was the baptized Christian who married under Christian rites and consistently practiced his faith, including regular church attendance. । He argued that these facts reinforced the conclusion that the deceased was a Christian. To support his argument, Mr. Butawantemi referred to Section 18(l)(a) and (i) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, read together with Rule 2(1) ’of the 5th Schedule of the same Act. He contended that these provisions, in conjunction, exclude probate matters involving Christians from the jurisdiction of the primary court. ! । iBoth counsels concluded that, based on the evidence presented, the I J primary court acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the matter concerning the estate of the late Julius Sepeku. ; i [After a thorough consideration of the parties' submissions, this court formulated a single issue for determination: whether the trial court had 4 jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter pertaining to the letters of administration for a Christian. Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and determine matters brought before it. In Tanzania, courts derive their jurisdiction exclusively from statute. It is a fundamental principle that before hearing any matter, a court must first ascertain whether it has been conferred jurisdiction by the relevant legislation. Without jurisdiction, any proceedings conducted and decisions rendered are void ab initio. The importance of jurisdiction was emphasized in the case of MIC Tanzania Ltd vs Hamisi Mwinyijuma and Another (Civil Appeal 112 of 2019) [2020] TZHC 4062 (20 November 2020, where the court held: "Jurisdiction is a creature of law and important for courts to satisfy themselves of their powers to determine matters firstly and prior to attempting them, lest they find themse/ves addressing a nullity. In the event of lack ofjurisdiction, the whole proceedings and findings are a nullity." In the present case, the issue of jurisdiction was raised suo motu. This is consistent with the principle established in M/S Tanzania - China Friendship Textile Co. Limited vs. Our Lady of the Usambara Sisters, Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2002, where the court held that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. 5 In this case, the deceased, Julius Sepeku, died intestate, and Probate No. 75 of 2009 was filed in the Primary Court of Kariakoo. On 14th September 2009, the trial court appointed Christine Sepeku, the deceased's wife, as the administratrix of the estate, with Letters of Administration issued on 23rd September 2009. | Evidence presented, including the clan meeting held on 4th April 2009 and Form No. 1, confirmed that the deceased was a Christian and had died intestate. It was further established through submissions and testimony that the deceased lived according to Christian rites and practices, leaving no doubt about his faith. i| ijThe jurisdiction of primary courts in and administration matters is expressly governed by Rule 1(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Magistrates'Courts Act, Cap. 11 R.E. 2019, which limits their jurisdiction to cases involving Islamic or customary law. TTiis provision is further reinforced by Section 18(1) (a)(i) of the Magistrates' Courts Act and Rule 2(1) qf the Fifth Schedule of the same Act. • "n the present case, the deceased's estate does not fall under the categories of Islamic or customary law, as the deceased was a Christian. The mode of life test, which examines the deceased's lifestyle to i determine the applicable law in intestate matters, confirms that Christian principles governed his life. ■i 6 This position was further affirmed in Miraji Salimu Nyangasa vs Ramadhani Omary Sewando (As Administrator of Estate of the Late Hussein Omary Sewando) (Civil Appeal No. 686 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 895 (17 September 2024) where the Court of Appeal held that primary courts' I. jurisdiction in probate matters is confined to cases where the applicable J i law is either Islamic or customary law. i I Jurisdiction is fundamental to a court’s authority to adjudicate a i l| matter. The trial magistrate's failure to address this jurisdictional issue ■i i renders the proceedings invalid from the outset. As held in the case of | Mic Tanzania Limited (supra), any decisions made without jurisdiction are null and void, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings. In light of the above analysis, this court finds that the primary court of Kariakoo lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Consequently, the following orders are issued: < The proceedings, ruling and orders in Shauri la Mirathi Na. (Probate and lAdministration Cause No.) 75 of 2009 of Primary Court at Kariakoo and 'decision in Probate Appeal No. 55 of 2023 of the district court's at Temeke One Stop Judicial Centre at Temeke are hereby quashed and set aside. !l 1 I 1 The Letters of Administration issued in these proceedings are also | | nullified, and the appointed administrators are ordered to return the 7 Letters of Administration to the said court. The interested party may initiate a fresh probate case before a court with competent jurisdiction to administer the estate of the Christian deceased. It is so ordered. Dat eke this 22nd November, 2024. Delivered in the pres^nce df Mr. Said Njama for Mr. Constantino Kakula learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Deogratius Alex Butawantemi learned advocate for the respondent and Ms. Bernadina Tayari, RMA. 8