SHADRACK SARIJI V JUDICA MANYAKA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA PC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2023 (Originating from the District Court of Ilemela in Probate Appeal No. 33 of 2022) SHADRACK MANYAKA SARIJI..................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS JUDICA GERSON MANYAKA......................................................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 21/9/2023 & 24/11/2023 ROBERT, J This appeal arises from the decision of the District Court of Ilemela in Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2022, which affirmed the decision of the Primary Court of Ilemela in Probate Case No. 60 of 2022. The Appellant, Shadrack Manyaka Sariji, appeals against the dismissal of his application for letters of administration for the estate of the late Grishon @ Grayson Manyaka. The Appellant initially filed Probate Case No. 60 of 2022 at the Primary Court of Ilemela seeking letters of administration for the estate of Grishon @ Grayson Manyaka, who passed away on 20/12/1994. The Respondent, Judica Gerson Manyaka, opposed the application on the grounds of res i judicata, citing Probate Case No. 12/1995 where Restituta Paschary was appointed as the administrator of the estate. The trial Court dismissed the case on grounds of res judicata and the District Court of Ilemela affirmed the trial court's decision. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal armed with the following grounds of appeal 1. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact for failure to make witnesses and the parties swear an oath before giving evidence; 2. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact for failure to make witnesses and the parties sign the proceedings on the dates of hearing/mention; 3. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact relying on exhibits which bears the names of a different person to rule that the application was resjudicata in absence of the judgment and inventory; 4. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact for failure to consider evidence of the respondent to objection and his witnesses. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant appeared personally without legal representation. Upon being given the opportunity to present his case, he implored the court to deliberate on the grounds of appeal and the records pertinent to this matter for a just determination. He made no further submissions but earnestly prayed for the allowance of his 2 appeal. The proceedings proceeded ex-parte against the respondent as he declined to be served. The Appellant contends that the trial Magistrate erred by failing to administer oaths to witnesses and parties before giving evidence, and by neglecting to ensure the signing of proceedings on hearing/mention dates. However, a thorough examination of the trial records reveals that the Magistrate did comply with Rule 46(3) of the Magistrates Courts (Civil Procedure in Primary Courts) Rules G.N. 310 of 1963, which mandates the administration of oaths to witnesses and the recording of proceedings. Furthermore, Rules 44 and 46(3) do not impose a requirement for parties to sign court proceedings. Therefore, this ground of appeal lacks merit. The Appellant alleges that the trial Magistrate erroneously relied on exhibits bearing different names to conclude res judicata without considering all evidence presented. However, the District Court carefully examined the probate forms and noted a spelling discrepancy in the first name but not in the surname of the deceased. Despite this discrepancy, a comprehensive analysis of the evidence established a clear connection between the two proceedings, satisfying the requirements of res judicata. 3 Thus, the trial Magistrate's reliance on the exhibits was justified, and this ground of appeal is dismissed. The Appellant contends that the trial Magistrate erred by neglecting to consider the evidence presented by the Respondent to the objection and his witnesses. However, a review of the trial records indicates that all witnesses were allowed to give evidence, and the substance of their testimony was duly recorded by the Magistrate. Therefore, there is no basis to support the Appellant's assertion of a failure to consider the Respondent's evidence. This ground of appeal is thus without merit. Lastly, the Appellant challenges the application of Rule 11 of the Magistrates' Courts (Civil Procedure in Primary Courts) Rules, G.N. No. 310 of 1963, which prohibits the adjudication of matters already decided. However, the District Court correctly applied this rule in dismissing the Appellant's claim. The evidence on record conclusively demonstrates that the issues raised in the present case had already been adjudicated upon in Probate Case No. 12/1995. Therefore, the District Court's decision to uphold the dismissal of the Appellant's claim based on the doctrine of res judicata was well-founded. 4 After a thorough analysis of the four grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant, this Court finds no merit in any of the contentions. The decisions rendered by the trial Magistrate and the District Court were sound and supported by the evidence and applicable legal principles. Accordingly, this Court affirms the decision of the District Court of Ilemela in Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2022, which upheld the dismissal of the Appellant's application for letters of administration. The appeal is hereby dismissed, and the decision of the lower courts stands. It is so ordered. JUDGE 24/11/2023 5