Sebastian Hieromini Shirima vs John Peter Urassa (Probate Appeal No. 31679 of 2024) [2025] TZHC 8605 (19 December 2025)

Page 1 of 22 THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT MOSHI PROBATE APPEAL NO. 31679 OF 2024 (C /F Misc. Civil Application No. 03 of 2024 and Probate and Administration Cause No. 02 of 2021 in the District Court of Rombo at Mkuu) SEBASTIAN HIEROMINI SHIRIMA (Administrator of the estate of the late Gabriel Hendry Leba ) :………… …APPELLANT VERSUS JOHN PETER URASSA…………………………………..... ....... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 25 th September & 1 9 th December , 2025 MONGELLA, J. The appellant herein was the respondent in Misc. Civil Application No. 03 of 2024 before the District Court of Rombo at Mkuu (henceforth , the trial c ourt). In that matter , the respondent faulted the appellant for including and distributing a piece of landed property located at Makoro Hamlet in Kirwa Keni Ward Mashati as part of the estate of the late Gabriel Hendry Lebai. The trial c ourt decided in the respondent’s favour declaring the property his . Aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal on grounds that:

Page 2 of 22

1. That t he trial Resident Magistrate erred in law by entertaining Miscellaneous Application No . 3 of 2024 while there were no proper pleadings as the law envisage, the irregularity causing injustice to the Appellant therein. The ruling in MSc. Application N o 3 of 2024 is attached as Annexure S1.
2. That there was no application named M i sc. Application No . 3 of 2014 as stated in the ruling and the matter was brought before the trial c ourt by way of o bjection in the P robate and Administration C ause No . 2 of 2021 at the time when inventory and accounts of the estate was already being filed in Court. (sic)
3. That the ruling in the said M iscellaneous A pplication No . 3 is problematic because it is uncertain whether the appellant herein above was sued in his person al capacity or as an administrat or of the estate of the late Gabriel Hendry Lebai.
4. That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in law and facts by failure to note that at the time the objection was filed in court the estate of the deceased was already distributed and the accounts was already filed in court and the disputed property was already handled over to the entitled beneficiaries. The form of account s of estate is attached as Annexture S3.
5. That the learned trial Resident Magistrate erred in law and fact by failure to note that respondent herein was neither a

Page 3 of 22 relative nor beneficiary of the estates of the late Gabriel Hendry Lebai. The Judgment in P robate and A dministration C ause N o . 2 of 2021 is attached as Annexture S3. 6. That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in law and fact for failure to note the person is deemed to die interstate of all property of which he has made a testamentary disposition which is capable of taking effects. (sic) 7. That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in fact s by failure to note that the clan members w as not entitled to approve and distribute the deceased properties as requested by the Respondent herein in absence of sufficient and credible proof being a written document or proper will left by the deceased. (sic) 8. That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in law and facts by failure to note that there was no any piece of evidence tangible proving that the deceased himself had bequeathed his properties to any person and the conclusion that the same was bequeathed to the respondent herein was fabricated and afterthoughts. (sic) 9. That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in law and facts by failure to note that the deceased being proved Christian in denomination the law applicable, in distribution of his properties after his death is the Indian S uccession Act and not c ustomary laws.

Page 4 of 22 10. That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in law and fact by failure to note that the P robate and Administration Cause No . 2 of 2021 from which Msc . Application No 3 of 2024 emanate was determined intestate as such there was no issues of oral or written wills in issue. (sic) 11. That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in law and fact by concluding that there was an oral will while the P robate and A dministration C ause No . 2 of 2021 was determined and concluded intestate and the decision is unchallenged to date . 12. That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in law and fact s by failure to note that there was no any will of the deceased being oral or written according to the dictates of the law. 13. That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in law and facts for failure to properly evaluate the evidence and there by arrived at a wrong conclusion. The parties prayed to dispose the appeal by way of written submissions. The Court accordingly fixed the filing schedule as follows: the appellant’s submissions on 09.10.2025, the respondent’s reply on 23.10.2025, and rejoinder , if any on 30.10.2025. In his rejoinder, the appellant raised concern that the respondent had delayed in filing his reply submission , alleging that it was filed on 24.10.2025 instead of 23.10.2025 as ordered by the

Page 5 of 22 Court. This necessitated checking of the record in the online system (eCMS) , which is the official filing forum . In that course, it was revealed that the respondent had filed his submissions within time, that is, on 23.10.2025 rendering the appellant’s claim baseless . The appellant appeared in person while the respondent engaged legal services of Mr. Constantine Felix Kimario, learned advocate. The appellant started by informing the Court that the 2 nd and 3 rd grounds of appeal were abandoned following the same being expunged by the Court vide its Ruling on preliminary objection delivered on 25.09.2025. He went ahead addressing the 1 st ground whereby he faulted the trial court for entertaining Miscellaneous A pplication N o . 3 of 2024, while there were no proper pleadings as envisaged under the law thereby causing injustice to him. He contended that the respondent did not fil e any application before the court rather, he just wrote a complaint letter which d id not adhere to the provision of the law under O rder I V Rule 1(1) and (2) of the C ivil P rocedure C ode [ C ap 33 R.E 2019]. He complained that he was not given the opportunity to prepare his defence and to tender proper evidence, he insisted even his exhibit which he tendered it was reject before the court. Addressing the 4 th ground, he contended that that the trial magistrate failed to note that when the respondent fil e d his

Page 6 of 22 caveat, the appellant had already distributed the deceased’s estate to the beneficiaries and the inventory and statement of accounts filed in court. That, he had already issued a notice to creditors under Rule 111 of the P robate R ules as shown under Exhibit D1. In his view, it was incorrect for the respondent to file his claim when the estate had already been distributed. to the heirs. With respect to the 5 th ground, he argued that the respondent was not a relative of the late Gabriel Hendry Lebai . He referred to the list of the deceased’s relatives as listed in the trial court Ruling in Probate and Administration Cause No. 02 of 2021 , being: Hieromini Gabriel Shirima; Gabriel Hieromini Shirima; Sebastian Hieromini Shirima; Eufenia Hieromini Shirima; Leonia Hieromini Shirima and Mathias Hieromini Shirima , which stands unchallenged . He contended that r espondent belong s to U rrassa clan while deceased belong s to Shirima clan and it was im possible for people from a different clan to inherit property from another clan . In the circumstances, he stressed that being not a clan, family member or relative to the deceased, the respondent was not involved in the clan meeting held on 23.08.2020 as exhibited in E xhibit P1 to make undisputed deliberations over the deceased’s estate . Expounding on the 6 th ground, he challenged the trial Magistrate for failure to note that P robate and Administration C ause N o 2 of 2021 was already decided . In his stance, the late Gabriel died

Page 7 of 22 interstate of all his property rendering M iscellaneous A pplication N o 3 of 2024 before Rombo D istrict Court based on untrue and fabricated allegations. The 7 th , 8 th , 9 th , 10 th , 11 th , and 12 th grounds were addressed jointly. The appellant started tackling the issue of “Will” whereby he held the stance that there was no valid “Will” left by the deceased. He challenged the “Will” on the ground that while the deceased professed Christianity way of life, the “Will” considered by the trial court was not only customary, but also uncertain and unfounded in the eyes of the law. He argued so on the bases that neither the respondent or his witnesses talked about existence of an oral will in their testimonies. He said that what was testified by the witnesses was that the deceased bequeathed his estate to the respondent on an unspecified date before his demise. He added that even the clan meeting held on 23.08.2020 at the deceased’s home and in absence of the respondent, did not discuss anything regarding the alleged “Will.” In his stance, the rules under the Indian Succession Act were to be applicable. He thus faulted the trial court for referring to a non - existent “Will.” The appellant proceed ed submitting that the respondents and his witnesses testified that the deceased had been long ill when he made the bequest, however he said, none of them explained the kind of sickness he suffered from. However, going with the respondent’s assertion regarding sickness of the deceased, he considered the deceased incapable of making any bequeath. To

Page 8 of 22 cement his point, he referred to S ection 46 (1) of the Indian succession Act , which provides that no person can make a W ill while he is in such a state of mind, whether arising from drunkenness, or from illness, or from any other cause, that he does not know what he is doing . The appellant further addressed the life style of the deceased saying that the deceased was a Christian by religion rendering the law applicable being the Indian Succession Act and the P robate and A dministration of E state s Act . The appellant further challenged the clan meeting that allegedly bequeathed the suit land to the respondent. He contended that the Shirima clan had no mandate to do that as it was the administrator of the deceased’s estate appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction. He challenged that even though he personally attended the said clan meeting, that does not render what transpired in the meeting legal. He thus urged this Court to rule that there was no valid Will capable of taking legal effect and allow the administrator to collect and distribute the deceased’s estate to the lawful heir in accordance with the law. He maintained his stance that the deceased died intestate and that his estate should be dealt with in accordance with intestacy rules. He challenged the respondent’s witnesses contending that apart from the oral evidence they had adduced, there was no independent evidence suggestion bequeath of the suit land by the deceased before his demise. He considered the respondent’s case fabricated and the trial Magistrate misdirected himself in

Page 9 of 22 considering such evidence. In his view, the respondent should have presented credible documentary evidence to back up his assertions. In what I find absurd, he argued further that the deceased was nowhere to be summoned to comment on what was said orally by the respondent and his witnesses at the trial court. That, in the absence of the deceased’s comments the allegations against him remain unsubstantiated, unless proved by a valid Will. Still on the same issue, he went on arguing that the issue of oral Will was improperly entertained by the trial court as the respondent did not lodge and caveat or objection, if the alleged oral Will existed. Addressing the 13 th ground, he reiterated his arguments on validity of the oral Will submitting that since there was no Will left the deceased died intestate and his estate ought to be dealt with in accordance with Section 25 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865. On those bases, he faulted the trial Magistrate for failure to evaluate properly the evidence on record thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion. He thus prayed for the Court to quash the trial court’s decision. The appeal did no go unopposed. Mr. Kimario commenced his submissions by addressing the annextures attached to the appellant’s written submissions , to wit a burial permit . He challenged that since the same are not extracts of judicial decisions or textbooks, they should be expunged from the record as the style is contrary to the long - standing legal principles. To that

Page 10 of 22 effect, he referred the Court to the case of TUICO vs. Mbeya Cement Co. Ltd & N.I.C. (T) Ltd [2005] T.L.R. 41; VETA vs. Ghana Building Contractors , Civil Case No. 198 of 1995; and M. Rutakyamira vs. Peter Joseph [1990] T.L.R. 49. Responding to the 1 st ground, Mr. Kimario argued that there was no any irregularity committed by the trial court to the detriment of the appellant. In his view, the trial court was properly moved through a complaint letter as practice requires and the parties were called to resolve the complaint. He explained that in that course, the trial court received evidence from both parties thereby according them the right to heard before a Ruling thereof was delivered. He stressed that each party was fully heard regarding the complaint on ownership of the suit land, rendering the appellant’s complaint that he was denied the right to be heard a total misconception. He contended further that the record reveals that the appellant called three witnesses to testify in his favour, being one, Sebastian Hieromini Shirima (the appellant himself - DW1), Gabriel Hieromini Makombo - DW2 and appellant’s brother, and Maria Gabriel Hieromini - DW3 and the appellant’s sister - in - law . Responding to the appellant’s contention on contravention of Order IV Rule 1 (1) & (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 R.E. 2023 (CPC) ; he considered the appellant to have misconceived the applicability of the respective provision. Expounding his contention, he argued that foremost, the CPC is not the

Page 11 of 22 applicable law in probate and administration of estate matters, unless where there are matters not covered under the probate law, to wit, the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap 352 R.E. 2023 and the Probate Rules , as amended. He added that the stated provision under the CPC is relevant in filing of civil suits and there was no any fresh suit filed by the respondent, rather it was an objection through formal letter to the trial court against the appellant on his move to include the respondent’s personal property as part of the deceased’s estate. He contended that there is no single provision in the Probate and Administration of Estates Act and the Probate Rules that direct filing of a suit in objection against inclusion of individual property in the deceased’s estate in accordance with the provisions of the CPC . In the premises, he was firm that the mode invoked, of filing the complaint through a formal letter, was correct. In addition, he contended that the proceedings that followed the complaint letter were fully under the trial court’s control, thus any error occasioned, if any, cannot be penalised against the respondent, as it is not his fault. In support of his argument, he referred the case of Mount Meru Flowers Tanzania Ltd. vs. Box Board Tanzania Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2018) [2021] TZCA 6 (12 February 2021, TANZLII). Mr. Kimario then responded to the 4 th ground. He submitted that what is discerned from the appellant’s submission is that the respondent’s objection was overtaken by events as he had

Page 12 of 22 already filed the statement of accounts as to the deceased’s estate. He challenged the argument arguing that so long as there was no court order closing the probate file so as to discharge the appellant from his duties as administrator, the probate proceedings remained open for inspection by any person with interest therein, in accordance with the provisions of Section 107 (5) of the Act , which includes filing of objections, if any. He added that the argument of issuance of notice to creditors serves nothing and cannot be construed as an order of the court closing the probate cause or a bar to the respondent to vie for his rights in connection with the probate cause. Addressing the 5 th ground, he responded that the respondent was a relative to the deceased as their mothers are siblings, so the fact that the appellant did not mention the respondent as one of the deceased’s surviving relatives does not exclude him from being a relative to the deceased. He added that it also does not negate the fact that he took care of the deceased during his sickness as evidence by the appellant’s own clan leaders. He added that the difference in names is not a conclusive proof of people’s biological relations. That, scientific proof is relevant in the circumstances and none was tendered to substantiate the assertion that the deceased and the respondent were not related. Addressing the 6 th ground, Mr. Kimario conceded to the appellant’s contention that the deceased died intestate. He

Page 13 of 22 however, challenged the appellant’s contention that the trial court relied on presence of oral Will to decide on ownership of the disputed land. He expounded that the issue of Will discussed by the trial court was just part of its reasoning but not evidence as none of the complainant’s witnesses adduced such evidence. He added that what was present in court was an oral testimony to the effect that the respondent was given the land in dispute by the deceased during his lifetime as a gift in consideration of him volunteering to take care of the deceased. That, the evidence adduced was to the effect that the suit land had shifted from the deceased to the respondent before his death, thus no longer part of the deceased’s estate. Mr. Kimarion further contended that the respondent has no problem with the appellant’s appointment as an administrator of the deceased’s estate and that is why he never challenged his appointment. That, he as well has no problem with him administering other properties of the deceased, if any, thus had no reason to interfere with the administrator’s smooth execution of his duties provided the execution does not affect his own properties. He added that the respondent’s grievance on administration of the deceased’s estate emerged following the appellant including his property in the deceased’s estate. In that respect, he found the appellant’s contention that the respondent was challenging his administration as being unfounded.

Page 14 of 22 He contended that it was only the probate court that had the mandate to determine the dispute over the land in dispute. To bolster his contention, he referred the case of Mgeni Seifu vs. Mohamed Yahaya Khalfani , Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2009 (CAT at DSM), in which it was ruled that “ where there is a dispute over the estate of the deceased, only the probate and administration court seized of the matter can decide on ownership .” In that view, he challenged the appellant’s contention that the trial Magistrate revised his own decision while the jurisdiction to do so lies with the High Court. Responding collectively to ground 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 , he reiterated his submission that the deceased died intestate. However, he contended that fact alone does not bar the court to discuss on presence or otherwise of a Will in reasoning its decision. He contended that though the court discuss about a Will, that was not its base for decision that the suit land does not form part of the deceased’s estate, but belongs to the respondent . He added that what was accorded weight by the court was the oral testimonies of the witnesses adduced before it, which were not founded on any Will, but on gift. He refuted the appellant’s claim that the respondent’s evidence was fabricated. Referring to Exhibit P1, he stressed that the appellant himself signed the said minutes of the clan meeting signifying agreement on what was presented by the clan chairman regarding the deceased giving the suit land to the respondent. He added that the evidence as to the property was

Page 15 of 22 given by members of the Shirima clan, thus could not have been fabricated. Mr. Kimario argued further that the deceased was in the right state of mind when he gave the suit land to the respondent. That, the disposition was rightly made and the respondent was in peaceful enjoyment of land until when interfered by the appellant. That, the appellant was annoyed by the fact that the land was given as a gift to the respondent, thus decided to file for probate so as to take over the suit land. He insisted that the deceased was not seriously sick as to not be aware of his decisions. He challenged the appellant for failure to furnish scientific proof to that effect. He urged the Court to be guided by the provisions of Section 117 (2), 119 and 122 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2023 . He went on insisting that all testimonies adduced in court by the respondent’s witnesses geared at proving that the suit land was given to the respondent by the deceased before his death as a gift for taking care of him. Lastly, on ground 13, Mr. Kimario had the stance that the learned trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record and was justified in his decision. He contended that the fact that the appellant was annoyed by the decision, does not render the same construed as containing wrong conclusions. In his view, the decision was based on principles of law. He as well challenged the appellant’s argument that the applicable law was the Indian Succession Act arguing that the argument is misplaced as the

Page 16 of 22 controversy at hand is not on the mode of life of the deceased or distribution of the deceased’s estate on which either of the two conflicting laws would be applicable. He concluded praying for dismissal of the appeal, with costs. The appellant made a brief rejoinder whereby he reiterated his contention that the objection was improperly filed. He insisted that no pleading was filed in terms of Order IV Rule 1 (1) & (2) of the CPC . He maintained his contention that he was not availed fair hearing as he could not file his written statement of defence, thus to a great extent condemned unheard. He as well maintained his arguments that the deceased professed Christian religion, thus the relevant applicable law statutory law and not customary laws. He as well maintained his contention that the deceased died intestate as proclaimed in Probate and Administration Cause No. 02 of 2021. Upon considering the grounds of appeal, the rival arguments by the parties and thoroughly gone through the trial court record; the 1 st , 4 th , 5 th , 6 th and 9 th grounds of appeal shall be addressed in seriatim and the 7 th , 8 th , 10 th , 11 th , 12 th and 13 th grounds collectively . However, as noted earlier, the 2 nd and 3 rd grounds have been abandoned, thus shall not be dealt with. Starting with the 1 st ground , the appellant faults the trial court in considering the respondent’s application while there were no

Page 17 of 22 proper pleadings , though he never mentioned the exact pleadings to be filed. I agree with the respondent’s counsel that the ground is misconceived. It is clear on record that the respondent filed his complaint vide a formal letter whereby he complained against the appellant for including his landed property in the deceased’s estate and moved the court to declare the same not forming part of the deceased’s estate . This was therefore not a normal civil suit, but an objection to the distribution of the deceased’s property. Under the law , the objection is filed in writing through a letter of complaint or an application in the probate court. A leaf is borrowed from the decision in the case of Miraji Salimu Nyangasa vs. Ramadhani Omary Sewando (As Administrator of the Estate of the Late Hussein Omary Sewando) (Civil Appeal No. 686 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 895 (17 September 2024, TANZLII). Since, the respondent moved the trial court by way of letter, the same is found correct rendering the ground lacking merit. I n the premises, the appellant ’ s assertion that he was not accorded the right to be heard is unfounded as the record shows him defending the case whereby, he testified and furnished two more witnesses to testify in his favour. H is claim is thus baseless. Under the 4 th ground, the appellant challenges the trial Magistrate for failure to note the fact that the objection was filed at the moment when the inventory and statement of accounts was already filed. Under the law, the mere filing of the inventory and

Page 18 of 22 statement of accounts does not bar future claims as the administrator’s reports do not go unchecked . In fact, u pon the forms being filed, the trial court is obliged to let the beneficiaries and all interested persons to verify the contents of the statement and raise objection, if any, before it closes the probate matter. See, Miraji Salimu Nyangasa vs. Ramadhani Omary Sewando (supra). The ground is therefore found baseless. With respect to the 5 th ground, the appellant faults the trial Magistrate for failure to take not that the respondent was neither a relative or beneficiary of the deceased. With respect to the claim as to whether the respondent and the deceased were related, the claim is unfounded as it is on record that the two were related from the maternal side whereby the deceased and the respondent’s mother were brother and sister just like they were from the deceased’s father’s side as the deceased had no child, wife, parent or blood sibling . As to the deceased being a beneficiary, it should be noted that the suit land was not given to the respondent as a beneficiary to the deceased’s estate, but as an appreciation of his kindness in taking care of the deceased during his sickness while the rest of his relatives, including the appellant had abandoned him. As such, the ground becomes baseless. Under the 6 th ground, just like the respondent’s counsel noted, it was not an issue that the deceased died intestate. With respect to the property in dispute, the deceased distributed the same while

Page 19 of 22 still alive thus having nothing to do with him dying intestate or not. By giving i t away while still alive, he parted with the suit land, thus the same does not form part of his estate. If the trial court mentioned something like a “Will” that if sound as an oversight, but in this Court’s view, the same does not affect the conclusion that the property belongs to the respondent for being given to him as “ gift inter vivos ”. In those bases, the appellant’s claim is found unmerited. In the same line of observation, as in ground 6 above, the 9 th ground is also found baseless. The respondent’s claim was based on distribution of the deceased’s estate to him, but rather inclusion into the estate of a property no longer belonging to the deceased as to form his property. As observed earlier, the property was given away as gift inter vivos, so in the premises, the question of applicable probate law has no place. It is misconceived and dismissed accordingly. The 7 th , 8 th , 10 th , 11 th , 12 th , and 13 th grounds involve evaluation and examination of the evidence on record. Foremost, the appellant challenges the trial court for considering the evidence of clan members on the ground that the same were not entitled to approve or distribute the deceased’s estate. I find the appellant has misconceived the gist of the respondent’s witnesses’ line of evidence. PW2 , PW3, PW4 and PW5 are clan members of the Shirima clan from which the appellant hails. PW2 and PW3 are leaders in the clan, to wit, chairman and secretary, respectively.

Page 20 of 22 All these witnesses testified directly as to their presence when the deceased was giving the respondent the suit land as an appreciation of him caring and nursing him during his sickness while the rest of the relatives, including the appellant were nowhere to be seen. The law is trite that every witness is entitled to credence unless there are cogent reasons not to believe the witness. These includes such issues as contradictions, inconsistencies or implausibility of the evidence adduce. See, Ernest Sebastian Mbele vs. Sebastian Sebastian Mbele & Others (Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 168 (4 May 2021). In the matter at hand, the respondent’s witnesses never contradicted as to what they all witnessed when the deceased handed the suit land to the respondent. They testified on the deceased telling them the reason for giving the suit land to the respondent being an appreciation for caring for him during his sickness as the other relatives had abandoned him. On the other side, the appellant and his witnesses, though claimed to have been communicating with the deceased via phone calls, they admitted not physically being with the deceased until they heard of his death. This evidence from their side confirms what the respondent’s witnesses had testified. In the clan meeting, as exhibited in Exhibit P1, which was not denounced by the appellant, who also signed the same as part of the meeting attendees, it is shown that the respondent’s witnesses

Page 21 of 22 confirmed the wishes of the deceased and communicated the same to the rest of the clan members so that the respondent would not be disturbed. This was not distribution of the suit land by the clan members as misconceived by the appellant, but rather a confirmation of what the deceased had done in the eyes of the clan members in witness. The suit land was distributed by the deceased himself while still alive and he is was not precluded by any law to do that as he had no wife, child, parent or sibling. The deceased was free to give his property to whoever he felt like and he chose to give the same to the respondent. The appellant spent much time challenging the trial court for relying on an oral Will in reaching the decision. As observed earlier, if the trial court mentioned existence of an oral Will, that must have been an oversight as there in nowhere in the respondent’s witnesses an oral Will have been mentioned. Going through their testimonies, all was found was their confirmation as to the deceased handing the suit land to the respondent in their presence. The fact that there is undisputed evidence on record to the effect that the respondent used the suit land even before the deceased had passed on, vindicates the respondent’s evidence that he was handed the suit land. In addition, considering that the respondent’s witnesses were members and leader of the clan from which the appellant belonged, they had no reason to side with the respondent who is a non - clan member instead of the appellant, their fellow clan member.

Page 22 of 22 On the other hand, the appellant failed to substantiate his claim that the deceased left no property to the respondent. Since he and his witnesses were never present or never met the deceased during his sickness, they have no base to refute the uncontradicted oral evidence adduced by the respondent’s witness. In consideration of the observations as hereinabove, the appellant’s appeal is found devoid of merit. The suit land had already passed hands from the deceased to the respondent by way of gift in appreciation of him taking care of the deceased during his sickness till his death. It is thus not part of the deceased’s estate as it belongs to the respondent as the lawful owner. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. Dated and delivered at Moshi on this 1 9 th day of December, 2025. X L. M. MONGELLA JUDGE Signed by: L. M. MONGELLA