Sophia Leticia Maruma v Asia Nyanzobe Yunge (Administratrix of the Estate of the Late Yunge Mwanansali)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL REVISION NO. 000027764 OF 2025 SOPHIA LETICIA MARUMA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS ASIA NYANZOBE YUNGE ADMINISTRATIX OF ESTATE OF THE LATE YUNGE MWANANSALI .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING MORRIS, J IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM SUB-REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL REVISION NO. 27764 OF 2025 (From the decision and orders of the District Court of Kinondoni in Probate and Administration Cause No. 15 of 2005) SOPHIA LETICIA MARUMA APPLICANT VERSUS ASIA NYANZOBE YUNGE (Administratrix of the Estate of the late Yunge Mwanasali) RESPONDENT RULING July 8th, 2026 Aug. 7th, 2026 Morris, J This is an application for revision brought by the Applicant, SOPHIA LETICIA MARUMA, against the Respondent, ASIA NYANZOBE YUNGE, the duly appointed Administratrix of the estate of the late YUNGE MWANANSALI. The application is made by way of Chamber Summons under sections 89 and 105 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 [R.E. 2023]. It is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant. The following orders are sought therein: (a) that this Court be pleased to revise the decision Page. 1 and orders of the District Court of Kinondoni in Probate and Administration Cause No. 15 of 2005, on the ground that the said Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) that the costs of this application be costs in the cause; and (c) any other order(s) or relief(s) that the Court may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances. The genesis of this application is traceable to Probate and Administration Cause No. 15 of 2005 before the District Court of Kinondoni. Wherein the Respondent, being the widow of the late Yunge Mwanansali, successfully applied for and was, on the 30th September 2005, granted the letters of administration over the estate of the deceased spouse. The deceased died intestate on the 16th June 1995 at Dar es Salaam. It is deposed further in the affidavit in support of the application, and it is not disputed, that the late Yunge Mwanansali was, during his lifetime, a Muslim by faith; that he practised the Islamic faith throughout his life; and that his burial was conducted in accordance with Islamic rites. On the strength of the above facts, the Applicant contends that the estate of the deceased, being that of a person who professed the Islamic faith, ought to have been administered in accordance with Islamic law, and that jurisdiction to entertain such probate proceedings was, by law, vested in the Primary Court and not in the District Court. The Applicant further avers that, being aggrieved by the irregularity going to the jurisdiction of the District Court, she sought and obtained leave of this Court to file the present revision out of the prescribed time. This leave was granted in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 000021844 of 2025, in the Ruling delivered by this Court (Hon. Mwanga, J) on the 9th October 2025. Wherein, the Court having found that the question of jurisdiction raised by the Applicant disclosed a point of law of sufficient importance, extended time within which the Applicant was to file the present revision, and directed that the same be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of that Ruling. The present application has accordingly been filed pursuant to, and within the time allowed by, the foregoing order. When the matter came up for hearing, the Respondent, despite due service, did not file any counter-affidavit, notice of preliminary objection, or any other document opposing the application, and did not, either in writing or orally, raise any Page. 2 objection to the orders sought. The application therefore proceeds as an unopposed application. The singular issue that falls for determination is whether the District Court of Kinondoni had jurisdiction to entertain and determine Probate and Administration Cause No. 15 of 2005, being a matter concerning the estate of a deceased person who, at all material times, professed the Islamic faith. It is trite and firmly settled law that jurisdiction is everything. The Court must, before embarking on the merits of any cause, satisfy itself that it is properly seized of jurisdiction to entertain the same. In principle, a decision reached without jurisdiction, however well- reasoned, is a nullity. It is well settled, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Tanzania China Friendship Textile Co. Ltd v. Our Lady of Usambara Sisters [2006] TLR 70, that jurisdiction is a creature of statute; the Court can only exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law, no more and no less, and the extent of that jurisdiction must be ascertained from the relevant statutory provisions and not from the convenience or agreement of the parties. Similarly, it is settled, as was held in Fanuel Mantiri Ng'unda v. Herman Mantiri Ng'unda & 2 Others [1995] TLR 155, that an issue touching on jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including on revision, and indeed may be taken up by the Court suo motu, since the absence of jurisdiction cannot be cured by waiver, acquiescence or the consent of the parties. Turning to the governing statutory provisions, section 18(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap. 11 R.E. 2023 (the Act), confers upon primary courts civil jurisdiction, among other things, in proceedings “where the law applicable is customary law or Islamic law”, subject only to a proviso excluding proceedings of a civil nature relating to land. Besides, section 18(2) of the same Act goes further and specifically addresses the administration of deceased estates, by providing that, “the Chief Justice may, by order published in the Gazette, confer upon a primary court jurisdiction in the administration of deceased's estates where the law applicable to the administration or distribution of, or the succession to, the estate is customary law or, save as provided in subsection (1) of this section, Islamic law.” Section 19(1)(c) of the Act further provides that primary courts, in the Page. 3 exercise of their jurisdiction in the administration of estates, are regulated by the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. This statutory scheme is reinforced by section 88(1)(a) of the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap. 352 R.E. 2023, which provides that; “the estate of a member of a tribe shal be administered according to the law of that tribe unless the deceased at any time professed Islam religion and the court exercising jurisdiction over his estate is satisfied from the written or oral declarations of the deceased or his acts or manner of life that the deceased intended his estate to be administered, either wholy or in part, according to Islamic law, in which case the estate shal be administered, either wholy or in part as the case may be, according to that law.” It is thus clear from the plain and unambiguous wording of these provisions, read together, that where a deceased person professed the Islamic faith, the law applicable to the administration of his estate is Islamic law, and that jurisdiction over such administration is a matter specifically and distinctly provided for under the Act in favour of the primary court, and not the ordinary probate jurisdiction exercised by the District Court over estates governed by the general law of succession. On the facts as deposed to in the supporting affidavit, and which stand unchallenged, the late Yunge Mwanansali was a Muslim by faith throughout his lifetime and was accorded an Islamic burial. It follows, on the plain wording of the statutory provisions cited above, that the law applicable to the administration of his estate was Islamic law. Consequently, jurisdiction over the administration of that estate was a matter falling within the primary court's jurisdiction under sections 18 and 19 of the Act, and not within the ordinary probate jurisdiction of the District Court. The District Court, in entertaining Probate and Administration Cause No. 15 of 2005 and in granting the letters of administration to the Respondent, exercised a jurisdiction that was not vested in it by law. This Court is alive to the fact that the Respondent has raised no objection to this application, and that, indeed, it would appear from the record that the Respondent's own advocate, upon being addressed on the point, did not resist the application. It is, however, a fundamental and well- established principle of law, applicable across common law jurisdictions including Tanzania, Page. 4 that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by the consent, agreement, or acquiescence of the parties; a court either has jurisdiction by operation of law or it does not, and no act or omission of the parties can supply what the law has not given. It follows that the absence of opposition, or even the consent of a respondent, cannot by itself confer jurisdiction where none exists in law, nor can it operate to validate proceedings that are otherwise a nullity for want of jurisdiction. This Court is enjoined to satisfy itself independently, on the law and the evidence before it, that the ground of revision advanced is made out; it does not abdicate that judicial duty merely because the application is unopposed. Having so satisfied itself, the Court finds that the absence of objection by the Respondent is, in the present case, no more than a factor confirming the correctness of the position advanced by the Applicant, and not the basis of the Court's decision. It is further trite that where proceedings are conducted by the Court without jurisdiction, the resultant decision and all consequential orders are a nullity ab initio and of no legal effect, however regular they may otherwise appear on their face. Being satisfied that the District Court of Kinondoni lacked jurisdiction to entertain Probate and Administration Cause No. 15 of 2005, this Court is satisfied that the proceedings, the decision, and the grant of letters of administration issued therein are liable to be, and are hereby, quashed and set aside on the basis of the present revision. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds merit in the application for revision, and the same is hereby granted. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows: 1. The application for revision is granted. 2. The proceedings, decision, and the grant of letters of administration issued by the District Court of Kinondoni in Probate and Administration Cause No. 15 of 2005, dated 30th September 2005, are hereby quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. 3. The parties are at liberty to institute fresh proceedings for the administration of the estate of the late Yunge Mwanansali before the Primary Court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with the applicable law. 4. Given the nature of the matter and the family relationship between the parties, costs shall be in the cause. It is so ordered. The right of appeal has been explained to the parties. Judge August 7th, 2026 Page. 5 Dated at DAR ES SALAAM this 25th of August 2026 . C. K MORRIS JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 6