N

E UNITED REPtTBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COUBT OF TANZ4NIA AT WTtiNZA PC. CIVIL 'APPEAL NO. 27/1979 (NGuru :ijm APPEPL NO: 61/1977 ORtG. i: PR/GoUiT CIVIL CASE NO. 8,7) S'1HfNO MPANDUJI •,.,,.,...........o.............. Versus ' 7 MtLJtSHI ................................. RESPONDENT JTJGB1ENT This is a second appeal. The claim was for twenty five head of cattle being property to be inherited by the appellant after his sister had died. The appellant*s sister lost her, husband and'theri she moved to the home of therspond.ont her cousin to live there with the cattle which her late huband had. left. The cattle we hers after her husband died. She stayed at 'the. respondent' shame until. she died intestate. Upon her death the appellant made his claim of the cattle which his sister had left behind.. The respondent would, not ie.him' 'the cattle saying that since the deceased had died at his home and in his bandè he is entitled to • inherit all her property,. The respondent also mitended 'that the deceased was his relative. náznely this, cousin. In it judgment the Priry.. Court was of the view that since the deceased decided to go witf her cattle to live with the resporident'tho apel].ait had no 'claim in the:.cattlo...The evidence however is quite clear that the appellant is the brother of thel..dece6sed who had gone to live with the respondent andthat ' th e respondent is only a

cousin to the deceaseda . In his meiorandum of appeal the appellant through'his ad'oo'ate'. states that the deceased never willed all her cattle to the respondent and that there, was no sufficient evidence to show that' the respondent was related to the deceased. He also states that even if the respondent was related to the deceased the' appellant should at least have been awarded half the cattle and that the award of tha 3 cattle, by the Primary. Court confirms that the d.eceased. did' not be uèath her' cattle by will, to the respondent. The Primary Court..did' not frame, an3t issues for decision4 This has led to the position that the' court did not have 1efore it anything tangible to decide. Indeed the Primary Court did not quote anything in support of its decision, One would have expected it to cite at least the relevant rule in the Law of Persons dealing with this situation. Nor did. the Primary Court give any plas ib].e reasons why' it was awarding the appellant three head of cattle.. The reason given for this, award is:'said to be because the appellant is related to the deceased...- The judgment of the Disti'ict Court does not 'get us aaywhere. The district court simply relies on the fact that the deceased decided to take her cattle with her.to the respondent to come to the conclusion thatthe appellant is not entitled to anything, not oven the 3 head of cattle awarded to

him by the lower court.. . . ' . I will set out very briefly the law governing inheritance in circumstances like the present'.. You inherit property in three ways namely either by consanguinity or affiztty; or through a will. If a person dies intestate then inheritance can be only by consanguinity or affinity. Consanuinity means relationship by blood i.e • blood relationship like father and son brother and sister.. Affinity is relationship by marriage like husband and wife.. In this case there was no will or at least no ' / •.'..-e