IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (MOROGORO SUB - REGISTRY) AT MOROGORO PC PROBATE APPEAL NO. 16617 OF 2024 (Arising from the decision of Ulanga District Court at Mahenge by Hon. Masimbi, M. SRIM in Civil Revision No. 4318 of 2024 dated 10% June 2024; Originating from Probate Cause No. 2 of 2023 before Lupiro Primary Court at Lupiro) CASTER ISAACK KOMBA ... VERSUS MONICA GINDE MUYOMBE..... s+ RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 01/08/2024 & 19/09/2028 KINYAKA, J.: The appellant's present appeal is against the decision in Civil Revision No. 4318 of 2024 rendered by the District Court of Ulanga at Ulanga hereinafter, the “District court” for reopening Probate Cause No. 2 of 2023 that was formerly closed by the Primary Court of Lupiro at Lupiro hereinafter, the “the probate court”. In the said decision which was delivered on 11" June 2024, the district court ordered the appellant to collect the deceased properties and distribute the same to the beneficiaries. teThe background of the present appeal is a Probate Cause No. 2 of 2023 which was determined at the probate court culminating to the appointment of the appellant as the administratix of the estate of the late Isaack Joseph Komba. The respondent objected to the inventory lodged by the appellant on 29"" September 2023. Upon given the floor to expound her objections, she informed the court that the deceased's farm located in Mbasa is only 6 acres and not twenty acres. She also faulted the adminstratix for her inclusion of the farm located at Igota measuring four acres as forming part of the deceased's estate claiming that the same did not belong to the deceased but her child. As for the two cows listed in the inventory, the respondent averred that there is only one cow who is not a family property. Lastly, she told the court that she was the one who deposited the moneys in the deceased’s bank account for their use. In a bid to resolve the respondent's complaint, the probate court ordered the parties to convene a meeting for verification of the properties alleged forming part of the late Isaack Jacob Komba’‘s estate. The family meeting was convened on 6" October 2023 which was attended by the deceased's children but the respondent did not attend. The administratix filed inventory and accounts on 13" October 2023 where the minutes of the family meeting was read and the deceased's estate was divided as follows: to(ii) (iii) (iv) The respondent was given an unfinished house, four acres’ farm located at Igota, TZS 1,510,000 that was in the deceased's bank account, and furniture. The properties and money had a total worth of TZS 12,110,000 which was 37.45% of the entire estate; Augustino Komba, the deceased’s son was given properties worth TZS 5,055,250 equivalent to 15.63% of the entire estate; Christa Komba, the deceased’s daughter was given properties worth TZS 5,055,250 equivalent to 15.63% of the entire estate; Annamaria Komba, the deceased’s daughter was given properties worth TZS 5,055,250 equivalent to 15.63% of the entire estate; and Caster Komba, the deceased's daughter was given properties worth TZS 5,055,250 equivalent to 15.63% of the entire estate Upon being satisfied that the appellant had properly distributed the estate of the deceased in a fair and just manner, the probate court closed the probate under paragraph 11 of the fifth schedule to the Magistrates’ Courts Act Cap. 11 R.E. 2019, hereinafter the “MCA”. The toprobate court ruled that the respondent did not want to cooperate with the family meetings and her objection had contradictions with regard to the owner of the cows. The respondent was dissatisfied with the probate court's decision and preferred revision before the district court. Upon hearing the parties, the district court reopened the probate cause and ordered the appellant to collect and distribute the deceased's assets to the beneficiaries. Aggrieved by the decision of the district court, the appellant appealed to this Court on the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the first appellate court erred in facts and law in holding that Probate Cause No. 2 of 2023 before Lupiro Primary Court was incorrectly closed without solving the objection by the respondent while the said objection was properly heard and decided by the trial court Magistrate; 2. That, the first appellate court erred in facts by not considering that the trial court provided the parties with more time to convene family meetings and resolve issues raised in the said objection but it was the respondent herein who stalled the process by not attending those family meetings and her objection before the trial court was not supported by any valuable evidence; and3. That, the first appellate court erred in revising and open the closed Probate Cause No. 2 of 2023 without considering that the Administratix had already performed her duties of administering the said estate by identifying, collecting and distributing the properties of the deceased to his legal heirs and properly filed Form No. V and VI as required by the governing law. The respondent opposed the appeal by lodging a reply to the petition of appeal on 26 July 2024. The appeal was canvassed in writing. The parties duly lodged their submission in support and against the appeal In support of her first, second and third grounds of appeal which the appellant argued them together, the appellant submitted that the objection raised by the respondent was duly determined by the probate court and was dismissed for the respondent's failure to prove her claims including absence of any person who objected to invasion of any of the properties alleged to have been wrongly included in the estate of the deceased. She contended that the respondent refused to participate in the family meeting despite being ordered by the probate court. She argued that she had fully performed her duties in utmost good faith by identifying, collecting and distributing the properties to the beneficiaries whereby, the respondent got a big share of 37.45% of the entire estate. She added that she duly filed before the probate court Form No. V and VI Ssand thus, completed her administration of the estate of the deceased. She prayed for the appeal to be allowed. In her reply submission, the respondent contended that the district court was correct to hold that the probate court should have heard the objections she raised. She contended that the probate court erred in closing the probate cause without being satisfied that the estate was properly collected and distributed to the heirs. She argued that none of the beneficiaries got his or her share as presented before the probate court while the appellant was still administering the estate for her own benefit. She added that there was execution case before the probate court which was decided on 6" February 2024, four months after the closure of the probate cause. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal with costs. In determining the present appeal, I will also consolidate all the three grounds of appeal as it was done by the parties in their submissions for and against the appeal. I wish to point out at this juncture that under section 22(1) of the MCA, empowers the district court to examine the record of any proceedings of the primary court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order, and as to the regularity of any proceedings, and accordingly revise the same.Noteworthy, the basis of the decision of the district court was that the probate court improperly closed the Probate Cause No. 2 of 2023 without hearing the respondent's objections. However, in my reading of the proceedings and the decision of the probate court, I have found that the record of the probate court reveals the opposite. Times without a number, both this Court and the Court of Appeal have emphasized on a settled law that court records always reflect what actually transpired at the trial and it is usually presumed to be authentic until the contrary is proved. For instance, in Jongo Mwikola v. Geita Gold Mining Limited, Civil Appeal No. 344 of 2020 [2024] TZCA 125 (23 February 2024), the Apex Court on page 13 of its judgment observed: "Jt seems to us that the appellant is impeaching the record of appeal something which is not allowed because the record of the court is presumed to depict the truth of what transpired in court. This position was underscored in the case of Halfani Sudi v. Abieza Chichili, Civil Reference No. 11 of 1996 (unreported), where it was stated thus: “We agree with our learned brother, MNZAVAS, J.A., and the authorities he relied on which are loud and dear that "A court record is a serious document. It should not be lightly impeached." (Shabir F. A. Jessa v. Rajkumar Deogra, Civil Ref No 12 of 1994, (unreported) and that "There is always the presumption that a court record accurately represents wewhat happened." See also: Hellena Adam Elisha @ Hellen Silas Masui v. Yahaya Shabani and Another, Civil Application No. 118/01 of 2019 and Alex Ndendya v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2018 (both un reported).” In the instant appeal, the proceedings of the probate court reveal that on 25" August 2023 when the matter was called for hearing, the court heard the appellant and the respondent (SU1). The probate court also heard the son of the respondent, Petro Abel Dule (SU2). In her testimony, the respondent testified that the deceased left 6 acres’ farm, NMB bank account, and one cow as the other one was sold. The respondent's son, (SU2) narrated the history on his living with the deceased during his life time including taking care of him when he was sick. However, he did not speak about the properties and if the cow and the four acres’ farm at Igota belonged to him. Both the respondent and SU2 did not object to the appointment of the appellant as administratix of the estate of the deceased. The probate court’s records reveal further that on 29' September 2023, after the appellant had filed an inventory, the respondent raised an objection on four grounds namely; that there were only six acres’ farm in Mbasa and not twenty acres; the four acres in Igota belonged to her son (SU2); the one cow was not a family property; and the money in the bank saccount was deposited by her for their use. As hinted earlier, the probate court ordered the beneficiaries to convene a meeting for verification of the properties and ordered the parties to return to the probate court on 13" October 2023. Apparently, the respondent did not attend the meeting. On 13" October 2024, the respondent informed the probate court that she did not attend the meeting but she maintained her stance on her objections that some of the properties were not the deceased’s. Upon hearing the parties, the probate court made a decision on 20 October 2023 upon hearing the respondent's objections and found the same were unmerited. It proceeded to close the probate. From the foregoing, it is clear that the probate court heard and determined the respondent's objections. On page 5 of its decision, the probate court determined the objection against the respondent by holding that she did not cooperate for her refusal to attend the family meeting that was ordered by the court. The probate court further reasoned that there was no any person who objected before the court on invasion of his/her property; that the respondent contradicted herself that there was only one cow remaining after the other was sold but she also stated that the cow belonged to her son; and that SU2, testified that the deceased Necleared a bush in which part of it was invaded though he did not state the number of acres. In the totality of my observations, I don’t find any reason to fault the probate court in its holding and the subsequent closure of the probate. Though the respondent alleged in her submissions that there was no meeting that was held, in her testimony before the probate court, she testified that she did not attend the meeting but informed the appellant of the properties which did not belong to the deceased. Again, SU2 whom the respondent alleged to own some properties in the estate of the deceased, did not inform the probate court that those or any of the properties belonged to him during his testimony at the probate court. Based on the above observations, I find the present appeal merited. There was no any improper, irregular, incorrectness or illegality of the decision of the probate court to close the probate upon hearing and determining the respondent's objection, and its satisfaction that the appellant justiciably distributed the deceased's estate as required in paragraph 10 of the Fifth Schedule to the MCA. Consequently, I reverse the decision of the district court in Civil Revision No. 4318 of 2024 and restore the decision of the probate court in Probate Cause No. 2 of 2023. For the sake of clarity, it is hereby ordered that: na. The Probate Cause No. 2 of 2023 before the Primary Court of Lupiro is marked closed; 2. The distribution of the deceased's property as presented in the inventory dated 20" October 2023 remains undisturbed; and 3. The appellant has been discharged of her duty as the adminstratix of the estate of the late Isaack Jacob Komba. Considering that the present appeal emanates from a probate dispute, I make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. DATED at MOROGORO this 19" day of September 2024. <1 HLA. Kany JUDGE 19/09/2024 Court: Ruling delivered in the presence of the appellant in personal, Mr. Cassian Matumbira, Advocate for the respondent and the Court Clerk, Mr. S. Paulo. Right of appeal is explained. 19/09/2024 1