victor majige others vs emiliana majige 2016 tzhc 2144 3 october 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA LAND APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2015 (From the Decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Dodoma District at Dodoma in Land Case No. 71 of 2012) VICTOR MAJIGE & 5 O TH ERS.................................... APPELLANTS VERSUS EMILIANA M A JIG E......................................................RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT 18/8/2016 & 3/ 10/2016. Mohamed A, J: This is an appeal against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal (“the trial tribunal”) delivered on 10/7/2014 in the respondents favour. It has the following six grounds of appeal: 1. That the trial tribunal erred by recognizing the respondent as the administratix of the deceased's estate without any credible and authentic letters of administration as there is no document showing members of the family agreed the respondent was appointed the administratix of the deceased’s estate. 2. That the trial tribunal erred as to the authenticity of the said letters as they were not signed by a Magistrate. And the said file is nowhere to be found in the records of the High Court of Tanzania at Dodoma. 3. That the trial tribunal erred both in fact and law as the said letters of Administration did not include all assets of the estate of the deceased but only the said house in question. 4. That trial tribunal erred as it did not consider the appellants’ arguments or their evidence in the judgment. 5. That the trial tribunal erred both in finding the existing contradictions in the respondent’s evidence on the date which she was granted the said administration of the deceased's estate. 6. That the trial tribunal erred both in fact and law in holding as it did that the suit premises belong to the respondent, whereas the evidence gives the right thereof to the appellants herein. Briefly stated, the respondent is the appellants’ natural mother. She claims to be the administratix of her late husband's estate and brought an action against them in the trial tribunal and sought inter alia orders to sell a house situate on plot No. 7 46 Block in Mlimwa West within Dodoma Municipality which the tribunal granted. Against that order the appellants appeal. On 18/8/2016, this court ordered the parties to address it on whether the trial tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the suit before it. It ordered the same to be argued by way of written submissions which were duly filed. It was the appellants' submission that the trial tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit before it as it was a probate matter. They submitted the tribunal’s jurisdiction is conferred by section 33 (1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act [Cap 216 RE 2002] which reads: (a) in all proceedings under the Land A c t 1999 Customary Leaseholds (Enfranchisement) A c t 1968 and Rent Restriction A c t 1984, the Regulation of Land Tenure (Established village) A c t 1992; and (b) In all such other proceedings relating to land under any written law in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred on a District Land and Housing Tribunal by any such law. The appellants stressed the respondent ostensibly claimed to be the administratix of the estate of Methusela Majige pursuant to section 101 of the Probate and administration of Estates Act [Cap 352 RE 2002] (which appointment they object) ought to have filed the matter in an ordinary court vested with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain such matters as in essence it is a civil one. On the other hand the respondent submitted at length on the probate dispute between the parties which I find irrelevant to this Court’s order as the parties were to address it on the question of the trial tribunal's jurisdiction. The respondent, however, concluded that the trial tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the suit before it. With respect, I disagree. I am in agreement with the appellants’ contention that the trial tribunal’s jurisdiction does not include probate matters which are vested in courts with civil jurisdiction. The trial tribunal's jurisdiction is, as was rightly pointed out by the appellants, limited to land matters stipulated in section 33 (1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act. In other words, although it involved a house, this was a purely probate matter which the trial tribunal lacked jurisdiction. In the final, I allow the appeal, quash the trial tribunal’s decision and set aside any orders therein. I make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. It is so ordered. A. Mohamed JUDGE 3/10/2016 The right of appeal explained. A. Mohamed JUDGE 3 / 10/2016