Swalehe Juma Sangawe (As Administrator Of Estate Of Late Juma Swalehe Sangawe) and Another vs Halima Swalehe Sangawe (Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2021) [2022] TZCA 3120 (4 October 2022)

SWALEHE JUMA SANGAWE (As administrator of the Estate of the Late JUMA SWALEHE SANGAWE) AND ANOTHER VERSUS HALIMA SWALEHE SANGAWE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MOSHI (CORAM: NDIKA, J.A KITUSI. J.A, and MAKUNGU J,A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2021 (Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Moshi dated the 1 st day of December, 2020 in Land Case No. 29 of 2017) Appeal-Probate and AdministratioAppeal- -Whether the respondent had legal standing to sue on her own or on behalf of the deceased's estate in the matter Appeal-Probate and Administration of Estates- of Estate Whether the trial judge correct in her holding Juma Swalehe Sangawe, Hussein Swalehe Sangawe, and Halima Swalehe Sangawe, siblings, were involved in a dispute over their deceased father, Swalehe Mlashi’s estate. Halima (the respondent) sued her brothers in the High Court of Tanzania at Moshi, claiming that the first appellant fraudulently transferred a residential property (Plot No. 3 Block X, Moshi Municipality) to himself, and the second appellant subdivided and sold a ten-acre farmland in Rau village without sharing proceeds. She sought declarations, distribution of the estate, accounting for rental income and land sales, and costs. In the appeal, the Court addressed three grounds raised by the appellants and questioned whether Halima had legal standing to sue. The appellants’ counsel argued she lacked standing, as only an estate administrator or executor with probate could sue on behalf of a deceased’s estate. Halima, self-represented, did not clarify her legal position.

The Court had to decide on whether the respondent had legal standing to sue on her own or on behalf of the deceased's estate in the matter, and whether the trial judge was correct in her holding. Held: (i) The Court held that the respondent had no standing to institute the proceedings in the trial court. (ii) Further, the Court held that the trial court obviously slipped into error by allowing her to maintain her action in her own name and entertaining it. The suit ought to have been struck out. Application struck out without costs. Statutory referred to: (i) Section 16, 17 and 71 of the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap. 352 R.E. 2002. (ii) Section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. Caselaw referred to: (i) Omary Yusuph v. Albert Munuo, Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2018 (unreported). Faygrace Sadallah for the Appelant. The respondent appeared in person.