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 High Court dismissed an appeal over probate administration, holding the primary court had jurisdiction and that the appellant’s revocation was justified.
The right to sue in this probate appeal did not survive the death of the donor of the power of attorney, as the claim was personal to the deceased beneficiary and not of a nature that could be continued by a legal representative. The District Court was correct to halt proceedings, but the proper order was abatement, not dismissal.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the district court’s order nullifying Mohamed’s appointment as administrator, and confirmed his letters of administration.
The respondent intentionally failed to obtain the applicant's mandatory consent, concealed material facts, and misled the court regarding the applicant's whereabouts, rendering the petition for letters of administration incompetent and constituting valid grounds for revocation.
Source excerpt
The High Court revoked the 1st respondent as estate administrator for mismanagement and appointed the applicant to act with the 2nd respondent.
The High Court of Tanzania removed the administratrix of an estate after she admitted inability to continue, and ordered the applicant to take steps toward appointment.
The applicant, as the widow of the deceased, has locus standi to file the application. The objection regarding the application being omnibus is premature and should be determined after hearing the main application. Both preliminary objections lack merit.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed an appeal in a probate matter, holding that letters of administration were defective because the widow’s consent was not obtained.
The High Court dismissed an appeal against revocation of letters of administration, holding that the appellant failed to prove her claims and justify non-distribution.
The appellants failed to prove that the properties listed by the respondent were jointly owned by their mother and the deceased. The law requires consent only from legal heirs, and the 2nd and 3rd appellants, not being children of the deceased, were not entitled to give consent. Distribution of matrimonial property cannot be raised in probate proceedings as the law governing probate provides for the shares of all beneficiaries. All grounds of appeal lack merit and are dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
