Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Respondent obtained the grant of letters of administration by concealing the existence of a pending administration and by making untrue allegations essential to justify the grant, thus revocation is warranted under section 49(1)(b) and (c) of the Probate and Administration of Estates Act.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed I&M Bank’s application to set aside interim orders, finding no proved fraud or duty on the 1st respondent to disclose the rental assignment.
The grant of probate was revoked because the respondent failed to notify all lawful heirs personally, relying only on general citation, and concealed the ongoing controversy over the will's exclusion of certain heirs, amounting to fraudulent concealment under section 49(1)(b) of the Probate and Administration of Estate Act.
Source excerpt
The applicant's claims do not fall within the ambit of section 49(1)(b) of the Probate and Administration of Estate Act as the arguments relate to matters that should have been raised by caveat before the grant was made. The respondent's actions do not amount to fraudulent concealment as she was not aware of the applicant's status at the time of the petition. The application is thus without merit and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Respondent obtained the grant by concealing material information, specifically the existence of other children of the deceased, and is not in a position to impartially administer the estate. Revocation of the letters of administration is necessary for proper administration and protection of beneficiaries' interests.
Source excerpt
The applicants' grounds did not disclose any manifest error on the face of the record or fraudulent concealment of facts that would justify review under Rule 66(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The issues raised were either matters for the main application or not pure points of law suitable for preliminary objection. Review jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge the merits of the decision.
Source excerpt
The petition was dismissed because the petitioner concealed the existence of prior proceedings and a binding order from the Kinondoni District Court requiring a fresh hearing in the Primary Court, rendering the matter subjudice and demonstrating fraudulent intent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
