Clan Meeting Not Must-Pc-Probate
Clan Meeting Not Must-Pc-Probate
Clan Meeting Not Must-Pc-Probate
JUDGMENT
21 & 30/4/2020
Kahyoza, J
" I agree with the trial court that aii family members must be
involved in the family meeting to appoint the administrative if they
fail to do so within 30 dear days from today then the applicant will
pray for the leave o f court to proceed with the former family
meeting minutes".
I examined the records found that both courts below were of the
view that the parties should convene a clam meeting to nominate a person
to apply to the court to be appointed to administer the deceased's estate.
Both courts below stated that it was a legal requirement without citing the
relevant law. I wish to point out that there is no legal requirement that
once a person dies intestate the deceased's clan members must convene
and appointing a person to administer that person's estate. It is a good
and cherished practice, which reduces conflicts among heirs as to who shall
administer the deceased's estate. It also serves as a notice to the
beneficiaries and heirs of the deceased. It also cuts sown costs of
informing all beneficiaries and heirs that a person intends to apply to
administer the deceased's estate. It is a good practice, it must continue to
be cherished. In Hadija said Matika V. Awesa Said Matika PC. Civ.
Appeal No. 2/2016. His Lordship Mlacha, J had the following to say
regarding a clan or a family meeting convened to nominate a person to
administer the deceased's estate. He stated -
After notice is served and the court is satisfied that the notice under
rule 5(2) of the Rules was so served, it may hear the person present and
if no objection is raised appoint the applicant. It is not mandatory that all
persons served with a notice must attend. Once, the court is satisfied that
all interested persons were served it will appoint the administrator in their
absence. (See rule 6 of the Rules).
Given what is stated above I will answer the above issue negatively.
Thus, the absence of the deceased's clan or family meeting to appoint a
person to administer the estate of a person who died intestate is not a bar
for a person interested in the estate to apply to the court to be the
administrator. Such person may apply and be appointed to administer the
deceased estate provided the Court complies with the provisions of the
Law stated above.
It was therefore, wrong for the trial court to dismiss the application
to administer the deceased's estate in the absence of the minutes of the
clan meting appointing the appellant to administer the deceased's estate.
It is trite law that generally a second appellate court should not
disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is clearly shown that there
has been misapprehension of the evidence or a miscarriage of justice or a
violation of some principle of law or practice. See Hamise Mhamed V. R.
Criminal Appeal No. 297/2011 (CAT Unreported) and Amratial
Damador Maltaser and Another V. A. H Jariwall Hotel [1980]T.L.R
32. In that case at hand, it has been shown that the concurrent decision of
the courts below were based on the wrong principle of law that a person
applying to be appointed to administer the deceased's estate is required by
law to produce minutes of the clan or family meeting appointing him. Thus,
the second appellate court can interfere.
J. R. Kahyoza
JUDGE
30/4/2020
Court: Judgment delivered in the absence of the parties. Copies to be
supplied to parties B/C C
]. R. Kahyoza
JUDGE
30/4/2020