rita alex maro vs emmanuel alex maro others 2018 tzhc 2139 9 august 2018

rita alex maro vs emmanuel alex maro others 2018 tzhc 2139 9 august 2018

The court found that there was no evidence or court proceedings to prove that Probate Cause No. 156/2009 was ever closed, and thus the primary court was not functus officio. The appellant's conduct, including filing two different inventories and failing to properly administer the estate, justified the revocation of her appointment as administratrix. The lower courts acted within the law and their decisions were upheld.

Citation
rita alex maro vs emmanuel alex maro others 2018 tzhc 2139 9 august 2018
Parties
Appellant: Rita Alex Maro; Respondent: Emmanuel Alex Maro; Respondent: Bruce Alex Maro; Respondent: Eva Alex Maro
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
9 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant of Administration, Functus Officio, Court Record Authenticity, Mismanagement of Estate, Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
English
Probate and Administration Civil Procedure Revocation of Grant of Administration Functus Officio Court Record Authenticity Mismanagement of Estate Procedural Irregularities

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rita Alex Maro

Appellant

Emmanuel Alex Maro

Respondent

Bruce Alex Maro

Respondent

Eva Alex Maro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Probate Cause No. 156/2009 was closed before revocation and whether the primary court magistrate was functus officio
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence for revocation of the grant of administration

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence or court proceedings to prove that Probate Cause No. 156/2009 was ever closed, and thus the primary court was not functus officio. The appellant's conduct, including filing two different inventories and failing to properly administer the estate, justified the revocation of her appointment as administratrix. The lower courts acted within the law and their decisions were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Decision of both lower courts upheld
  • Appellant's appointment as administratrix remains revoked