Samson Kishosha Gabba vs Charles Kingongo Gabba (Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 485 (23 November 1990)

-: . :t - --.- ·,:-i: f - . ' . ~ . '.- .... ,. .., .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF T/\NZANit. 1\T MWN-lZA. M°'!SCELLJ\NEOUS CIVIL /,PPEl',L NO. 8 OF t,89 (Appeo.l from the Decision,:-f th~ District court af . .Kwirnbn at Ngudu in the c., 1 ministrntion Esto.te file No.1/1989, Origino.l Estc!te No.11/1988 fram Knkoro. Prim::i.ry Court) SAMSON KISHOSH.A GABBA • . . . . . . . . ·.+ .. r. Versus CHARLES KINGONGO G/,BBJ\ • • • • . • • • .• , • • • • • RESPONDENT JVDGMENT MWALUSANYA, J • : .. Qi- The nppellont Snmon Kishosha Go.bba filed n npplico.tion at Ko.koro Primnry Court in Ngudu Dlstrict, for him to be c.ppointecl an administrator o! the estate of his decensed fnther Gnbbn Mpondamnii. He stated in the o.pplico.ton that he was a suitable .:..Ondidate for the po:5t of the ndministrntor of the estate 0f-he ... . , I .deeensed beonuse tW'J pr0perties viz. houses on Plot No .. 125 and r---·-··;· 0 ·-:;,,No.-33-:-·Block J, inNgudu Township belong to him( applicant) and not ; - to ·.the- deceased, though the snid plots o.re G.11 in the no.me of . ,. ·; :the ideeeased ... ~~J-J: .: t~>:"i· : . "· . J . . ·.' 1 th,e' 'respondent Charles K ingongo Gnbbo wns nppointed by · ',, oth,et'fchildren of the decer-.sed :ts well ns the dececi.sed 1 s wife, to. til~ an objection in c-ourt ngninst the appointment of the· . appellant ns the ndministrntor 0f ·the estate of the deceased • . Evidence wns given ns t::i why nppellont-wns unfit t0 be npp0inted administro.t0r .1f the dece2.sed I s estate.. ./lnrl it wns vip:0ur0usly ;oqntended that the ·t~~ houses on plot. No.125 niid 33 Block 11., in- · . . Ngudu Town.ship belonged t0 the deceo.sed and not to the nppello.nt9 · . ·: . I The . trial court found the nppellant to be unfit to be / ·,-rppointedh. o.s 1 nni nddmtinistrnto: o_fft_ht: estat· tet offththe ddece:::.sedd . / we•r;use e c o me- o 0wn pc .. ~ o · 1i~ ·es n e -:.:, e ecense • ~- -And:Aio 1 t wo.s found thRt he ""s nt loggerheo.us with rJther . thi:l;drn of the decensed,. /,nd so the appellant I s npplicc.tion I . was ;9-ismis.sed. Anc1 ins tend· the trial court nppointeu the ~- ·:·, . ~ta,.n:: of the areo. o.s the admlpistrnt'.)r of the deceased , ",·,lg sfatei'· - , · . . . • ?,~~ -f~~:;'~~Jfft~ ;·>; ·. . . .. <:'.~~ ,;:2~: 'J.:,b,e trial court di.d · dacide two other things.., which I .·: . . ~ . ( · ·-think ·wus mist.2kenl.y clone • ~ ... • ; . ··----- -·-·~---,,, _ ,. -----..-....•·---------•--------·. . ·'

• .•, ~ : ::-..>., ·•·,• i ' I I i f I I r I / i ! I .. j I 2 . First the trio.l court held th:J.t ti i2 hems,.:: ·,nrT'.'l ')Ts 1 ·h .125 ;;mcl Noe33 Blc,ck A, Ngudu T::,wnship bel ·11-:u' t;·, 4::hr.? c1.ercnsed ond not to the o.ppellant. Seccmt.lly i.l,G 'c1 inl 0 1 Jrt. usurped the powers -Jf the :.:tdminis tr0.t0r 0f the de•ens,Jd; s estn.t•: by rr:Yncrty tn the chilrlrcn .::if tbr.) dece,,.sed including the nppellonto Thenppellnnt decided t::i apenl rigc inst the. j..; 'gment of the Primary Court which wns delivered ':Jn 5/7/1988e The appellnnt prese_ted his Petitbn 0f J\ppe2cJ t'J Kwimbi, District co,Jrt cm 11/Z/1989 and wns told h8 was out of time c.nd so rm 14/2/1989, he filed an. applicnti0n for leo.ve t0 appe,·.l t0 the District . - e·ourt out of time. He said intl•e nffidnvit thrt be vm.s lr:te ta .appeo.l because be bad gcme to see the District RegistrC\r in Mwo.nza so that he app0ints cmother District Mngistr,'"'te t:> henr his intended o.ppeal other than the incumt-,]nt Mr., M.h. Mlowc.1.. The npplicnti::m for len.ve t.-, G"'.'f.'G1l :-iut '..r time wns--cA:-&-=~=-"""'-·--- by M.R. Mlawa D.M. It is ngcinst tho.t disr.:isscll thnt "''J2I.)ellnnt has appeo.led t0 .this c0urt 0 ----- 0 --- i,.,,-,;:,:..~~-::c·;;.,_;;;; ___ L The reo.sJnS which npr0lJ.,.,1t rires-?n"·,·; in the-, r·,.?!l1'1r[lmltlm o:f Appeo.1 tis cause :::f the delr.-.y nrc :f!'iv )·Lous rm-1. , ,,_ t0n-tly untenable. One is o.t o. loss if it is .i.nLleed true th: 0 .t che oppellant w2,s a mo.?istrnte · durins tho c ,:i.'.);1inl times, 2s t'.) why he plecds imorance -::if. the .'1-nw -:1s the i::ot.,sc 0f t-.he delay fnr him -...........-- to ap1;>e2.l., He concedes th2.t he' sh':mll tc.: h_nve fileu the ::1ppeal by 11/9/1988, but so.icl thnt he C')Ul:.l n::it cl".' s::, bocnuss. he wns onsulting the District Registrar I'tw,mzo., s0 th::1t he npp·::iints o different District Magistrate t hear the appel lie said that beceuse he l0dged the C')nplint t') the District Registrnr bef0re 11/9/1988 then it sh')uld be t7.1{en tb:1t he w;:1.s n0t 0ut of time. The argurnent by the o.ppellnnt th::i.t beco.u2,C:: h( lvccl lodged his c-:>mplnint of chc.nge of magistrrites ·t:J the District Registrar in tine, then it sh'Juld ho.ve been t,.,ken thnt 1 ,e hod n :,t been time bq.rred, is rnive as it is prep'.)stErouse fAppnrently he is ignorant cf the lnw dispi.te the f,'J.ct t:--1~,t he was n magistrnte~ He sh0uld hnve filed the nppeal 'by ·,·1/9/1988 nntl then should have started t:J pursue. his ':Iisr. to ho.vc :ppenl" Tl 1 ere was no ,0'1 ot g'.)od rE:_;:,_scin ns t,.:) why ne:: sh0uld c10t have filed the appeal in -timeo o,, ,/3 i 1· I . i ' i I

I ' t I J· ' r ' :., . . t ! 1i 'l '1· J: I i './ ' I ' I . ·, ' ' ~ l Y. r, G I ; I ' ~ t ,. r ,· r"· ' i: ~~-- j ~ ·- . t.;J 3 If this W"J.S the only mnterinl to consider I would hnve aismU!sed the nppeo.l. The· lenrned District Mc\gistrc:i.te should n0te thnt :ine 0f the ro':lst imp-::irta.nt points t::, c-onsider whether '>r not t0 nllow an ppenl. 0ut of time i's-the likelihYJd of succes of the intended c.ppenl. The p•Jints ro.ise-1 in the intended memrJrnndum of nppeal, os well o.s the judgment 'Jf the trinl c::)Urt h,WE: to be eonsidered t:) see if the intended appeal hns any chances of sueess. While reo.sons for the delety in appenling intime are relevant, yet. th::>se nre net the cinly mo.terio.l con-5iderntian in. these mn.tters. In this .cnse, the lenrned Distriet Mngistr:ite,· erred in not considering the chnnces c,f success c,f the intended a:ppeol. After c:Jnsiderin_g ,;t..ri,e. judgment of the tr1nl 0urt, I nm of the view thnt the -intenaea o.pp-eo.-i' hns g'Jod chances of success o.nd i~ will 1?~~~~1~~~~-i! port of the judgment of-the trinl court is reversed. I say so beccuse the d.ecision '.)f 'the· trf;i c0urt ·has same -::,nspicuous errars appointment ,.:if the Words Secretary ns the ndministrnt~';:: oi• the · eceased estete wn.s quite corrt._ H'.)wever the rial court had o power to distribute the estnte ,:;f n deceo.sed person t0 the espective heirs; th2t pc,wer ::,f distribution is given t') the administr2.tor of the deceo.ed esto.te O Sr) the trin.l C'JUrt usurped the power it d-:-Jes nut hnve under th law. Ago.in it is the a6.ministrntor 0f deceased estnte who knows the pr,.)perty of -e deceased nn't_;ibutes iif If any 0f the pr0perty · .. _distributed i1::!-__:.':,1)Jn•)t t-:J belong to the dece;J.sed, then the person- t9 be sued in c0urt is the ndministro.tor ')f the deceased estate. In this case the trial c0urt was wrang to decide the ownership of the houses on plot No.125 and No.33 Black A, when *,the.administrator had yet t0 distribute them. If the District Magistrate hnd considered those above mentioned fundamentnl it w::iuld h2.ve gro.nted leave to 2.ppeal 0ut 0! time, despite the fact thnt the nppellnnt hc.d delecyed. After all the delny was not very l·ong, but the anly five months. And so I will nllow this appeal 50 that the nppenl is filed within 30 days fr'Jmtodny. Am:)ng ,::,ther things tbe District Coμ.rt shJuld c-:msider setting nside the illeg:J.l orders of the Primary C-::iurt '.:'Jf distributing the estate •)f the decensed to the heirs; ns well ns setting o.side the-premi'\ture order thrit the tw:> houses bel:Jnged to the d.ecensed. ,, •• / 4

-< .. ✓ ,c?: 1 11 ' .l .• ,-{-:f "'c;utrthe 1 ythnrenl nt_h·-:;we tw-:; District ffogistrntes ,'i: Kwirnbr: District '{J .., nppeal t-'.):b .. fileG, be he0rd 1.Jy 1 m1'.gistrnte _ 1 1 other than Mr. M.R. Mla.wn, . 4 . f 1• The respondent during the hec-.ri,g -::,f ::11_:. 1 pe:1l rc1iseci n. ! 1

• /i' - · · complaint· o.s to why The c!ecroe "f trm '! i111t"'.'t"'~~-Ft-;,,..,..;l-:-k::s;...IJ..I11,J.:2t~=====""""" i executed. (He w·Jndered '.1.S tJ vheF:er the Seni'..'r Resident l M'agistrnte Mr. E.P. Mtui h:'d power t-. '.'.lrc'.er stny 0f executi·Jn by a letter ref. no .. _ 82/323 -:;f 27/2/'1989 when there 1 .-l~.s no C'.)urt '! 1 { 1 / -, __ t order·o) He sa.id thct he was even imprisoned in n criminal co.se I- for o. disobeying a lcwful order i. e ~ the s::.id letter 0 f the , 1 f ( · S .R,M, He wondered if thnt W!"lS n--:;t nn nbuse ,_,f p0wer:; J\11 I · t cnn · so.y is that, the complaint r,.ise<l is n,..,t relev(':nt to the ; f. · r appenl under discussion My -:>bserv:iti·,n is th;:,.t n. letter which ---4 :-:- n:t bnce? up by a court ?rder cannot h:,ve the effet --:if stny 7-e-·-:... ---'-' ,c;'_l:F:fi1on pending npf)enl, In nny ca.se '-.n this pc:.rticul0r ·1· - r • . --:;;i_i 7 i~e-r"•--,;= ~::.,: n0 ~:~~~~~ 0 f any kind hnd been l0dged cmd up t, n:w no :1 - ""· -=-p"i!lf-i·fo:s·'"been filed. If the resp:>ndent .£'eels th::.1t there hns , t . n . --- -- - :::· 1 ,'· - been a case ·Jf abuse_ -:Jf p:Jwer, hE mo,y pursue his remedy / f ' \ - . administrntively _(.)r by filing o. ense in c:,urt f,)r ·rerlress. '.f r-·· ! { B'e th2.t as it mny, this o.ppeo.l 1;1ce0t1S. I o.llow the n.ppenl. •.• ,j J l f ( I i. l J· i , ... t ! ' - . . ... ---~~-:t,: The- !'.',ppellnnt sh-:iuld flle -his c1)per:.1 G.t J< ,,1:Unbn District C'.curt within 30 dnys from t')dcy ~ In vi.ew ,f tr:0 :1::i.ture ')f my I order tha.t ench-pnrty-·will be'.".::.' its -'.)vr,-i ;;:0sts of this Order nccordingly. .J ,L. MWt,LUS/,NYt. JU:lGE 23/11/".990 decisir.in, . :::ippeo.l. co in chambers in the presence ')f the AT MWANZA. 23rd November, 1990 M1;I- i,US/,NYJ\ .;TJDGF ' , ..