Mrero Amani Mgeni and 2 Others vs Administrator General (Application No. 000002386 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 3068 (11 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA APPLICATION NO. 000002386 OF 2026 MRERO AMANI M G ENI...............................COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF SANGIWA AMANI M G ENI..................................COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF LEAH NYUSU M G ENI...............................COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL...............................RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING MAHIMBALI, J This is an application by way of Chamber Summons brought under section 31(1) of the Administrator General (Powers and Functions) Act, Cap. 27 R.E. 2023. The applicants, being beneficiaries of the estate of the late Amani Elisabeth Yakobo Mgeni @ Amani Yakobo Mgeni , seek orders directing the Administrator General not to sell the deceased's properties but instead distribute them directly to the beneficiaries, that the estate be administered under Pare customary law, and for such further orders as this Court may deem Page. 1 fit. The application is supported by a joint affidavit sworn by the applicants. The respondent opposed the application through a Counter-Affidavit sworn by Ms. Clementina Rishela, learned State Attorney. By consent of the parties, the application was disposed of by way of written submissions. The applicants contend that following his appointment by this Court as Administrator General of the estate, the respondent embarked on a process of selling the estate properties, including the family house situated at Sakina, Arusha, instead of distributing the estate among the lawful beneficiaries. They submit that the Administrator General's primary obligation is preservation and distribution of estate assets rather than liquidation thereof. According to the applicants, no necessity has been demonstrated to justify the sale of the family house, which they contend carries significant family, cultural and ancestral value. The applicants further argue that the deceased lived according to Pare customs and traditions, served as a clan leader, participated in customary affairs, promoted Pare culture and language, and that his estate ought therefore to be administered under Pare customary law. Page. 2 They also fault the respondent for failing to file a proper inventory and account of the estate and submit that the Administrator General should have preserved the estate pending determination of disputes concerning the applicable law and mode of distribution. In opposition of the application, the respondent submits that the application is devoid of merit and has largely been overtaken by events. It is contended that an inventory had already been filed in the main probate proceedings and that the administration process was delayed by applications filed by the applicants themselves. The respondent further submits that several attempts were made to achieve distribution without sale, but those efforts failed due to disagreements among the beneficiaries. Consequently, the sale of the estate properties became the only practical means of achieving equitable distribution among all heirs. The respondent maintains that consultation with beneficiaries is not a statutory requirement and that the decision to sell was supported by other beneficiaries. It is further argued that the applicants have been occupying and benefiting from the family house to the exclusion of other beneficiaries. Regarding customary law, the respondent submits that no evidence has been produced demonstrating that the deceased lived under Pare customary law. On the contrary, the deceased contracted a civil marriage, which demonstrates Page. 3 that he had departed from a purely customary mode of life. The respondent therefore contends that the issue of customary law is an afterthought raised long after the administration proceedings had commenced. In their rejoinder submission, the applicants submit that the sale of the property was premature and unlawful because disputes concerning the applicable law, inventory, distribution and preservation of estate assets remained unresolved. They argue that the Administrator General remains subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and ought to have sought directions before undertaking an irreversible transaction. The applicants further maintain that the issue of the applicable law ultimately falls within the jurisdiction of the Court and not the unilateral determination of the Administrator General. Having considered the application, affidavits and rival submissions, the following issues arise for determination: 1. Whether the applicants have established sufficient grounds for this Court to restrain the sale of the estate properties. 2. Whether the estate ought to be administered under Pare customary law. 3. Whether any further directions are necessary in relation to the administration of the estate. Page. 4 On Issue No. 1, Whether the applicants have established sufficient grounds to restrain the sale of the estate properties the applicants seek an order directing the Administrator General not to sell the estate properties. The difficulty confronting that prayer is that, according to the respondent's undisputed submissions, the impugned properties have already been sold and the respondent is in the process of distributing the proceeds among the beneficiaries. Courts do not ordinarily issue orders in vain. Where the act sought to be restrained has already been completed, a prohibitory order becomes incapable of practical enforcement. To that extent, the prayer restraining sale has been overtaken by events. However, the Court must still satisfy itself that the Administrator General acted within the law. The material before the Court demonstrates persistent disagreement among the beneficiaries concerning the mode of distribution. It is equally apparent that efforts aimed at reaching consensus failed. The applicants themselves acknowledge the existence of longstanding disputes concerning distribution. The office of the Administrator General is entrusted with the responsibility of collecting, preserving, managing and distributing estates. Preservation remains the primary objective. Nevertheless, where distribution in specie becomes impracticable due to the nature of the property or disagreement among beneficiaries, sale of the property and distribution of proceeds may become Page. 5 necessary. No material has been placed before the Court demonstrating bad faith, fraud, self-dealing or personal benefit on the part of the Administrator General. Equally, no evidence has been adduced showing that the sale was conducted secretly or for purposes other than facilitating administration of the estate. In the circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the decision to sell the property was unlawful merely because some beneficiaries objected to it. Accordingly, the first issue is answered in the negative. As with issue No. 2, Whether the estate ought to be administered under Pare customary law, the applicants urge the Court to direct the Administrator General to administer the estate under Pare customary law. The law is settled that the applicable law of succession is generally determined with reference to the deceased's mode of life immediately before death. The burden of establishing the applicability of customary law rests upon the party asserting it. The applicants have relied on assertions that the deceased was a clan leader, participated in customary affairs and promoted Pare culture. While those matters may demonstrate cultural affiliation, they do not by themselves conclusively establish that the deceased intended his estate to be Page. 6 governed by customary law. On the other hand, the respondent has produced evidence showing that the deceased contracted a civil marriage. Although a civil marriage alone is not necessarily decisive, it constitutes a significant factor in determining the deceased's mode of life. More importantly, the record reveals that the issue of Pare customary law was never raised during the probate proceedings, during the appointment of the former administratrix, or even during the appointment of the Administrator General. The issue is being raised only after substantial administration of the estate has already taken place. In my considered opinion, the applicants have failed to place before the Court sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the estate ought to be administered under Pare customary law. The authorities cited by the applicants are distinguishable because in those cases the evidence clearly established the deceased's customary mode of life. I therefore find that the prayer seeking directions for administration under Pare customary law lacks merit. Lastly, is consideration on issue No. 3: Whether any further directions are necessary. The applicants have repeatedly questioned the accuracy of the inventory and the manner in which the estate has been administered. Page. 7 Although the respondent states that an inventory has already been filed and that distribution is underway, the Administrator General remains accountable to both the Court and the beneficiaries for his administration of the estate. In order to promote transparency and bring the administration process to a lawful conclusion, it is appropriate that the Administrator General completes the administration process and file a final account upon completion of distribution as required by law. Having deliberated that much, in the final analysis, I find that: (a) The prayer seeking to restrain the sale of the estate properties has been overtaken by events; (b) The applicants have failed to establish that the sale of the estate property was unlawful; (c) The applicants have failed to prove that the estate ought to be administered under Pare customary law; and (d) The Administrator General shall, upon completion of distribution of the estate, file a final account in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed . Given the consanguineous nature of the dispute and the fact that the matter concerns administration of a family estate, I make no order as to costs . Page. 8 It is so ordered. Dated at ARUSHA this 11th of June 2026 . F. H MAHIMBALI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 9