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
Appellants had locus standi and pursued the correct remedy by appeal, but since the Will was validated and not challenged, distribution must follow its provisions. No legal justification exists to interfere with the trial court's decision.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an appeal over probate administration, holding the primary court had jurisdiction and that the appellant’s revocation was justified.
The court held that an earlier administrator had closed probate, but 25 acres of farm land remained unadministered. The petitioners were appointed to administer that remaining estate.
The appellant is not a blood relative of the deceased and thus lacks standing to object to the appointment; the respondent, as great grandson, was properly appointed by the clan; there is no legal bar due to lapse of time as a statement of delay was filed and accepted; and the existence of property for administration cannot be pre-judged.
Source excerpt
Second appeal in a probate dispute dismissed. The court held there was no valid will, no strict time bar applied, and an administrator was still needed.
Appellant has no locus standi as he is not a lawful heir under customary law; only surviving sibling (respondent) is entitled to inherit. Revocation not warranted as respondent acted within law.
Source excerpt
The applicant was not heard in the appellate proceedings that revoked his appointment, violating the right to be heard. However, as a grandchild, he has no direct right to inherit from the estate of his grandfather, and the inclusion or exclusion of properties was properly addressed by the deceased and prior administrator. Clan minutes are not legally binding. The application lacks merit and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed an appeal over distribution of a deceased wife's estate, holding the appellant had his own share in the house and could not have the whole property treated as estate.
The respondent, as administratrix, acted against the interests of the beneficiaries by failing to consult them, distributing the estate unfairly, and including a non-heir as beneficiary. The Primary Court retained jurisdiction to revoke her appointment even after inventory filing. The District Court erred in setting aside the revocation and in failing to provide adequate directives. The appeal is allowed, the District Court's decision is set aside, and the Primary Court's revocation of the respondent is upheld.
Source excerpt
The High Court adopted an administratrix’s inventory and final account, rejecting heirs’ objections about alleged missing assets, bank funds, and distribution issues.
Explore more
