Zakaria Maseke
Member
- Apr 26, 2022
- 83
- 128
KESI YA MIRATHI ILIYODUMU MAHAKAMANI KWA MUDA WA MIAKA 30: Kwa nini hii kesi ilichukua muda mrefu hivyo kuisha?
(Na hadi sasa haijaisha, kwa sababu aliyekuwa msimamizi wa mirathi kwenye hii kesi ameomba ruhusa ya Mahakama kukata rufaa, mwaka 2021).
Kulingana na umuhimu wa kesi hii, nimejitolea kuitafsiri kwa Kiswahili, ili watu wengi zaidi waelewe.
(Kesi hii imeandaliwa na kuletwa kwako nami Zakaria Maseke - 0754575246, Advocate Candidate - Mwanasheria na mwanafunzi wa uwakili 2022).
Ukiachana na ile kesi ya JUDITH PATRICK KYAMBA dhidi ya TUNSUME MWIMBE na watu wengine watatu, Shauri la Mirathi no 50 la 2016 iliyoamuliwa na Mheshimiwa Jaji Mlyambina, ambapo Mahakama Kuu ilisema “Watoto waliozaliwa nje ya ndoa wana haki ya kurithi, na kwamba hakuna mtoto haramu bali kuna wazazi haramu.”
Kutana na kesi nyingine tena ya BEATRICE BRIGHTON KAMANGA AND AMANDA BRIGHTON KAMANGA v ZIADA WILLIAM KAMANGA, CIVIL REVISION NO. 13 OF 2020. Iliyoamuliwa na Mheshimiwa Jaji MLACHA.
Kwa utangulizi tu ni kwamba, Marehemu (Brighton William Kamanga) aliacha watoto wawili wa kike (Beatrice Brighton Kamanga na Amanda Brighton Kamanga) ambao aliwazaa nje ya ndoa (au bila kufunga ndoa rasmi). Wakati huo (1988) watoto bado walikuwa wadogo, Bi Ziada William Kamanga (dada yake marehemu) akafungua mirathi akateuliwa kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi.[/I] Baadae watoto walivyokuwa wakubwa akaanza chenga kibao, akiombwa hata hela ya ada chenga.
Watoto wakaenda Mahakamani mwaka 2000, walizunguka Mahakamani sana, mpaka Mahakama Kuu, lakini wapi, kote waliambulia kushindwa tu. Mara kadhaa dada wa marehemu (ambaye ndo msimamizi wa mirathi) aliwakana Mahakamani kwamba sio watoto wa marehemu, mara aseme haondoki kwenye nyumba n.k. Wakabaki kuzurura kwenye korido za Mahakama wee, mwisho wakakata tamaa na Mahakama, wakaona hazina msaada, wakaenda kwa Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Dar es Salaam, na huko ikashindikana.
Je, awamu hii Mahakama ilimfanyaje huyu msimamizi wa mirathi (Bi Ziada ambaye pia ni dada yake marehemu)?
NB: Nimetumia vifupisho.
-RC stands for Regional Commissioner (Mkuu wa mkoa)
-PC for Primary Court (Mahakama ya Mwanzo)
-DC for District Court (Mahakama ya Wilaya) na
-HC for High Court (Mahakama Kuu)
Further, applicants ina maana waombaji (walalamikaji) na respondent ina maanisha mjibu maombi (mlalamikiwa).
FACTS / STORI YA KILICHOTOKEA
-This was a suo motto revision by the court following complaints lodged by applicants (Beatrice Brighton Kamanga and Amanda Brighton Kamanga) alleging that the respondent who is the administratrix of the estate of their father, (the late Brighton William Kamanga,) is misappropriating the estate for her own benefit without due regard to the interests of the applicants who are children and heirs of the deceased, and that the she is using tricks in Courts to ensure that she remains with the estate at her own benefit.
Kwa kiswahili: (Kufuatia malalamiko ya watoto wa marehemu, kwamba msimamizi wa mirathi ya baba yao, anaitumia vibaya mirathi kwa faida yake mwenyewe, bila kuzingatia maslahi yao kama watoto na warithi wa marehemu, na kwamba anatumia JANJA JANJA mahakamani kuhakikisha kuwa anabaki na mirathi hiyo kwa faida yake. Ikabidi Mahakama Kuu yenyewe bila kuombwa na mtu, ifanye revision (mapitio ya maamuzi yote yaliyofanyika tangu kesi ianze).
-As aforesaid, Ziada opened the Probate in 1989 when the applicants were very young and was appointed the administratrix of the estate in PC. (Kama nilivyotangulia kusema, Bi Ziada alifungua shauri la mirathi mwaka 1988 wakati hawa watoto wakiwa bado wadogo, akateuliwa na Mahakama ya Mwanzo kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi).
-Records show that there was nothing in court from 1989 when the respondent was appointed the administratrix of the estate up to 2000. (Kuanzia hapo 1989 hakuna kilichoendelea Mahakamani mpaka mwaka 2000, kwa sababu wakati huo hawa watoto bado walikuwa wadogo).
WATOTO WALIANZA KWENDA MAHAKAMANI MWAKA 2000
-In 2000 when they grew up they filed application in DC of Kinondoni seeking revocation of the respondent for her failure to file inventories and statements of accounts and make the division of assets to heirs. (Mwaka 2000 walipokuwa wakubwa wakafungua kesi Mahakama ya Wilaya wakiomba utenguzi wa Bi Ziada kama msimamizi wa mirathi kwa kushindwa kutoa hesabu kamili ya usimamizi wa mirathi au kurejesha nakala ya mgao mahakamani ili jalada lifungwe).
-The respondent, rose objection to the status of the applicants claiming that they were not children of the deceased. (Huyu msimamizi akaweka pingamizi ambapo aliieleza Mahakama kuwa hawa sio watoto wa marehemu, akasema hajawahi kufahamu kuwa marehemu aliacha Watoto).
-Application was dismissed in 2002 on two grounds; that it was unsafe to disturb the probate which had been in existence from 1988 and for failure on the part of the applicants to show that they are children of the deceased. (Mwaka 2002, Maombi yao ya kuomba Bi Ziada atenguliwe yakatupiliwa mbali kwa vigezo viwili; Kwanza, kwamba sio busara kutibua mirathi ambayo imedumu tangu 1988 na pili, kwa sababu watoto walishindwa kuthibitisha kwamba ni watoto wa marehemu).
MWAKA 2003
-They appealed to HC in 2003 (Mwaka 2003, watoto wakakata rufaa kwenda Mahakama Kuu).
-The decision of the DC was set aside on technical points. (Yale maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Wilaya yakawekwa kando kwa masharti ya kiufundi).
-The HC had the view that the DC had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for revocation (Mahakama Kuu ikasema, Mahakama ya Wilaya haikuwa na Mamlaka ya kuyasikiliza maombi ya kutengua msimamizi).
- HC directed them to go back to PC and seek revocation (Mahakama Kuu ikawaambia warudi Mahakama ya Mwanzo waombe msimamizi atenguliwe).
-Wakaenda wakakaa.
MWAKA 2010
-In 2010 they opened a fresh matter in PC seeking appointment of Amanda Brighton Kamanga as the administratrix.
(Mwaka 2010, wakafungua shauri jipya (kesi mpya) Mahakama ya Mwanzo wakiomba mtoto wa marehemu Amanda ateuliwe kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi).
- Msimamizi wa Mirathi (ambaye ni dada wa marehemu) akawakana kuwa sio watoto wa marehemu.
-The PC declared the applicants as legal children of the deceased. (Mahakama ya Mwanzo ikatamka kuwa hawa ni watoto halali wa marehemu).
-The second applicant, Amanda Brighton Kamanga, was appointed the administratrix, without revoking the first appointment. (Mtoto wa marehemu, Amanda akateuliwa kusimamia mirathi bila kutengua yule msimamizi wa mwanzo).
-The respondent appealed to DC (yule msimamizi wa kwanza, dada wa marehemu, akakata rufaa Mahakama ya Wilaya).
-The district court found the matter to be irregular and set it aside.
-The DC vacated the decision arguing that it was wrong to open a fresh matter.
(Mahakama ya Wilaya ikaweka kando maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Mwanzo yaliyomteua Amanda kuwa msimamizi, kwa hoja kuwa walikosea kufungua kesi upya.
- They applied for revocation of the respondent at DC (Watoto wa marehemu wakaomba tena msimamizi atenguliwe katika Mahakama ya Wilaya).
-The respondent rose the question of the status of the applicants again to prove whether they’re children of the deceased. (Dada wa marehemu akaweka pingamizi tena, kwamba waombaji sio watoto wa marehemu na kwamba marehemu hakuwahi kuoa au kuacha mtoto kipindi cha uhai wake).
- After a long hearing, the court declared them lawful children of the deceased. (Baada ya mjadala mrefu, Mahakama ikawatambua kama watoto halali.
- The court ordered the respondent to handover the estate to the applicants (Mahakama ikamwamuru Bi Ziada awakabidhi mirathi watoto wa marehemu.
MWAKA 2017
- The respondent filed Revision to the DC. (Bi Ziada akaomba mapitio Mahakama ya Wilaya).
- DC vacated the findings and decisions of the PC (Mahakama ya Wilaya ikaupitia uamuzi wa Mahakama ya Mwanzo na kuuweka kando).
-Aggrieved by the decisions and in total loss of faith in the legal system, the applicants went to various places to complain. (Watoto wakiwa wamepoteza imani kabisa na mfumo wa sheria, wakaenda kulalamika maeneo mbali mbali).
-They went to the office of the RC for Dar es Salaam who made an intervention without success (wakaenda ofisi ya Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Dar es Salaam) lakini wapi.
MWAKA 2019
- Applicants returned to DC
-They made Application for extension of time to file a petition of appeal (Mwaka 2019 wakarudi Mahakama ya Wilaya kuomba waongezewe muda wa kukata rufaa).
-The application was dismissed (maombi haya nayo yalifutwa).
- Up to this time, there is (was) another pending application to review the decision of the DC made in Application for extension. (Mpaka hii kesi inaitishwa kufanyiwa Revision na Mahakama Kuu, kuna kesi nyingine tena ilikuwa ipo Mahakamani ya kuomba kupitia (kurejea) upya Maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Wilaya yaliyotolewa kwenye yale maombi ya kuomba kuongezewa muda wa kukata rufaa.
2020 - DECISION OF HC IN REVISION (MAAMUZI YA MAHAKAMA KUU KWENYE MAPITIO)
MWISHO KESI IKAENDA MAHAKAMA KUU FOR REVISION (KWA AJILI YA KUPITIWA UPYA USAHIHI WAKE).
THE HIGH COURT HAD TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS AND THE STATUS OF THE RESPONDENT AS AN ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE AND MAKE ORDERS THERETO.
-Mahakama Kuu iliomba mafaili yote ya kesi tangu ilipoanza yaletwe yapitiwe upya ili kujiridhisha kuhusu usahihi wa mwenendo wa kesi nzima na maamuzi ya Mahakama zote za chini, tangu kesi ilipoanza na uhalali wa Bi Ziada kama msimamizi wa mirathi, kisha itoe maagizo ya kufanya.
-Isipokuwa, kuna faili la kesi ya kwanza iliyomteua Bi Ziada kuwa msimamizi (1988) halikupatikana. Wakaleta nakala (copies) za barua ya kuteuliwa kuwa msimamizi (appointment letter) cheti cha kifo (death certificate) na kibali cha mazishi (burial permit).
-The HC found that the respondent who was appointed an administratrix of the estate in 1989 has not accounted for her
administration to date. No inventory and or statement of account has been filed since then. (Mahakama kuu ilikuta kwamba, Bi Ziada aliyeteuliwa kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi mwaka 1989 hajatoa hesabu ya usimamizi wake mpaka leo, yaani mpaka tarehe kesi hii inafanyiwa revision - 2020)
-Kulikuwa na nyumba tatu za marehemu Sinza Dar es Salaam (there existed three (3) houses of the deceased at Sinza Dar es Salaam).
-Bi Ziada alisema hawezi kuhama kwenye nyumba mojawapo anayoishi kwa sababu aliruhusiwa kukaa humo na marehemu na kwamba nyumba haikuwa ya marehemu ni ya wazazi wake. (She added that, she cannot vacate in the house where she is staying because she was allowed to stay there by the deceased and that the house does not belong to the deceased. It belongs to his parents).
- Applicants submitted that the house belongs to the deceased. It is registered in the name of their grandfather but it is the property of their father. (Watoto wakasema nyumba ni ya marehemu, imesajiliwa kwa jina la babu ila ni mali ya baba yao).
-The HC also found that, despite two rulings from the PC recognizing the applicants as children of the deceased, she does not want to recognize them. (Pamoja na Maamuzi mawili ya Mahakama ya Mwanzo yaliyowatambua waombaji kama watoto wa marehemu, yeye bado hataki kuwatambua).
-She was reluctant to release the assets to them. She has remained with the assets for all the years and wants to convert them to her personal assets. (Anasita kuachia / kukabidhi mirathi kwa watoto. Amezishikilia mali kwa miaka mingi na anataka kuzigeuza kwa matumizi yake binafsi).
- The applicants said that what they needed is that the assets of their late father should be handled to them now that they are grown up and adults. (Watoto wakasema wanachotaka ni kupewa mali za marehemu baba yao, kwa sababu sasa wameshakuwa watu wazima).
DECISION OF HC (UAMUZI) WA MAHAKAMA KUU:
- The HC fully supported the findings and decisions of the PC, that the applicants were children of the deceased (Mahakama Kuu ikaunga mkono yale maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Mwanzo yaliyowatambua waombaji kama watoto wa marehemu).
- Since he cared for them (kwa sababu aliwatunza).
- He introduced them to the family (aliwatambulisha nyumbani)
-They were also involved in the burial ceremonies (Walienda kumzika baba yao).
Mahakama Kuu ikasema, “Where there is credible evidence showing that the deceased took a positive step to take care and or introduce his child to his relatives, the courts should not hesitate to find that he intended him to be known as such a therefore his child under customary law.”
(Kwamba, kukiwa na ushahidi wa kuaminika unaoonesha kwamba marehemu alichukua hatua madhubuti kutunza mtoto na au kumtambulisha kwa ndugu zake, Mahakama haitasita kuamua kwamba, marehemu alidhamiria huyo mtoto atambulike, na hivyo ni mwanae kwa utaratibu wa sheria ya kimila).
Kuhusu SHERIA YA URITHI YA KIMILA (the Local Customary Law (Declaration) (No. 4) para 43, second schedule inayosema, “watoto wasio halali hawawezi kurithi upande wa kiume katika urithi usio na wosia”
Makakama ilisema, “that law is no longer valid in view of the coming into force of the Law of the Child 2009 Act. The concept of “illegitimate child”, children born out of wedlock, has no room in this country any more. Kwamba, Sheria hiyo sio halali tena baada ya kutungwa kwa Sheria ya Mtoto ya mwaka 2009. Dhana ya mtoto haramu, (kwa) watoto waliozaliwa nje ya ndoa, haina nafasi tena katika nchi hii.
Pia Mkataba wa Umoja wa Mataifa kuhusuina na Haki za Mtoto, ambao Tanzania imeridhia na kusaini, umekataza hicho kitu. (The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Tanzania is a signatory has banned that concept). Pia Sheria ya Mtoto ya mwaka 2009 ilitungwa ili kuendana na hiyo Mikataba ya kimataifa.
Hali kadhalika, section 5(2) of the Law of Child Act prohibits any type of discrimination against a child. (Kifungu cha 5(2) cha Sheria ya Mtoto ya mwaka 2009, kinakataza aina yoyote ya ubaguzi dhidi ya mtoto.
“Whether he was born with or without a valid marriage is covered there. He is not expected to be discriminated on that basis. All children are equal so to say and must enjoy equal rights.” (Haijalishi mtoto alizaliwa kwa ndoa halali au isiyo halali kifungu hiki kinamlinda. Asibaguliwe. Watoto wote ni sawa na wana haki sawa).
Mahakama Kuu ikaendelea kusema, “In this reasoning therefore, it is wrong to deny a child his rights to inherit from his father’s estate simply because he was born out of wedlock, the act which he had no control himself.” Kwa sababu hiyo, sio sahihi kumnyima mtoto haki yake ya kurithi mali ya baba yake kisa tu alizaliwa nje ya ndoa
Pia, Kifungu cha 10 cha Sheria ya mtoto kinasema “A person shall not deprive a child of reasonable enjoyment out of the estate of parent.” Kwamba mtu asimzuie mtoto ku enjoy (kunufaika) na mali za Mzazi.
Maana ya Mzazi imeelezewa katika kifungu cha tatu cha Sheria ya Mtoto kuwa ni, “a biological father or mother”, the adoptive father or mother and any other person under whose care a child has been committed.” Kwamba Mzazi ni baba au mama kibayolojia (wa kukuzaa kabisa), au anayetokana na kuasiliwa, pia mzazi ni mtu mwingine yeyote ambaye mtoto amewekwa chini ya uangalizi wake.
Mwisho, Mahakama ikaamua kwamba, “the applicants have a right to inherit from the deceased despite the fact that there was no official marriage between their father and their mothers.” Kwamba hawa watoto kwenye hii kesi, wana haki ya kurithi mali za marehemu hata kama ni kweli kwamba hapakuwa na ndoa rasmi kati ya baba na mama zao”
LEGALITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS & DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURT
Kuhusu usahihi wa mwenendo wa kesi nzima na maamuzi yote ya Mahakama za chini, Mahakama Kuu ilisema, “the proceedings and the decision of the DC (in application for revocation) of 2001 was correctly vacated by this Court because the DC had no jurisdiction to revoke the appointment of the respondent. That was in the domain of the court which appointed her meaning the PC.”
(Kwamba, yale maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Wilaya yaliyotokana na maombi ya watoto wa marehemu kuomba msimamizi wa mirathi atenguliwe, yalitupiliwa mbali kiusahihi na Mahakama Kuu, kwa sababu Mahakama ya Wilaya haikuwa na mamlaka ya kumtengua msimamizi wa mirathi. Hilo lilikuwa ndani ya mipaka ya Mahakama iliyomteua, kumaanisha Mahakama ya Mwanzo).
“The proceedings & decisions of the PC in Probate Cause of 2010 (a fresh matter seeking the appointment of Amanda Brighton Kamanga as the administratrix of the estate, in which the court declared the applicants as legal children of the deceased and appointed Amanda Brighton Kamanga, the administratrix of the estate of the deceased. But, on appeal, the DC vacated the decision arguing that it was wrong to open a fresh matter) WERE WRONGLY VACATED by the DC in Appeal, because the administrator had lost his mandate by the time, which was 21 years by then, for failure to account for her administration as required by rule 10 of GN 149 of 1971.”
Kwamba, “yale maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Wilaya kwenye shauri la mirathi la mwaka 2010, (ambapo watoto wa marehemu walifungua kesi mpya Mahakama ya Mwanzo kuomba mtoto wa marehemu, Amanda Brighton Kamanga ateuliwe kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi, na Mahakama ya Mwanzo ikawatambua kama watoto halali wa marehemu, ikamteua Amanda Brighton Kamanga, kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi, lakini kwenye kusikiliza rufaa, Mahakama ya Wilaya ikayakataa ikisema kuwa haikuwa sahihi kufungua kesi upya), MAAMUZI HAYO YALIKATALIWA KIMAKOSA, kwa sababu msimamizi wa mirathi alikuwa ameshapoteza mamlaka yake wakati huo, ambapo ilikuwa ni miaka 21, tangu ashindwe kutoa hesabu ya usimamizi kwa mujibu wa sheria).
“Where the administrator has failed to file his inventory and statement of account for a period exceeding four months and he remains so for a long time without extension from the court which appointed him, his appointment becomes invalid and comes to an end by operation of the law.” (Msimamizi akishindwa kutoa hesabu ya mirathi kwa muda unaozidi miezi minne na akae muda mrefu bila kuomba kuongezewa muda na Mahakama iliyomteua, uteuzi wake unaisha kisheria).
“The applicants were therefore correct in the circumstances, and particularly after missing the record of the earlier file, to open a fresh file altogether to deal with the matter. (Hivyo, katika mazingira hayo watoto walikuwa sahihi kufungua kesi mpya, ukizingatia faili la kesi ya kwanza lilikuwa halipo).
Mwisho, Mahakama ilitengua maamuzi yote, ikapitisha tu maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Mwanzo kwenye kesi ya mwaka 2010 ya kumteua Amanda Brighton Kamanga kuwa msimamizi wa Mirathi, zikiwemo nyumba tatu, Sinza, Dar es Salaam. Bi Ziada akaagizwa kumkabidhi mirathi, Amanda Brighton Kamanga ambaye sasa ataisimamia.
-The HC revised & vacated the proceedings and decisions of the lower courts, but uphold the proceedings and decisions of the Primary Court in Probate and Administration Cause No. 43 of 2010.
-Amanda Brighton Kamanga was appointed as the administratrix of the estate of the late Brighton William Kamanga which include the three (3) houses in Sinza Dar es Salaam. The respondent was directed to handle the estate to Amanda Brighton Kamanga who should administer the estate.
Unaweza ku share lakini usibadili yaliyomo.
Yours Sincerely,
Zakaria (0754575246),
Hobby : Strong writing and editing skills.
(Na hadi sasa haijaisha, kwa sababu aliyekuwa msimamizi wa mirathi kwenye hii kesi ameomba ruhusa ya Mahakama kukata rufaa, mwaka 2021).
Kulingana na umuhimu wa kesi hii, nimejitolea kuitafsiri kwa Kiswahili, ili watu wengi zaidi waelewe.
(Kesi hii imeandaliwa na kuletwa kwako nami Zakaria Maseke - 0754575246, Advocate Candidate - Mwanasheria na mwanafunzi wa uwakili 2022).
Ukiachana na ile kesi ya JUDITH PATRICK KYAMBA dhidi ya TUNSUME MWIMBE na watu wengine watatu, Shauri la Mirathi no 50 la 2016 iliyoamuliwa na Mheshimiwa Jaji Mlyambina, ambapo Mahakama Kuu ilisema “Watoto waliozaliwa nje ya ndoa wana haki ya kurithi, na kwamba hakuna mtoto haramu bali kuna wazazi haramu.”
Kutana na kesi nyingine tena ya BEATRICE BRIGHTON KAMANGA AND AMANDA BRIGHTON KAMANGA v ZIADA WILLIAM KAMANGA, CIVIL REVISION NO. 13 OF 2020. Iliyoamuliwa na Mheshimiwa Jaji MLACHA.
Kwa utangulizi tu ni kwamba, Marehemu (Brighton William Kamanga) aliacha watoto wawili wa kike (Beatrice Brighton Kamanga na Amanda Brighton Kamanga) ambao aliwazaa nje ya ndoa (au bila kufunga ndoa rasmi). Wakati huo (1988) watoto bado walikuwa wadogo, Bi Ziada William Kamanga (dada yake marehemu) akafungua mirathi akateuliwa kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi.[/I] Baadae watoto walivyokuwa wakubwa akaanza chenga kibao, akiombwa hata hela ya ada chenga.
Watoto wakaenda Mahakamani mwaka 2000, walizunguka Mahakamani sana, mpaka Mahakama Kuu, lakini wapi, kote waliambulia kushindwa tu. Mara kadhaa dada wa marehemu (ambaye ndo msimamizi wa mirathi) aliwakana Mahakamani kwamba sio watoto wa marehemu, mara aseme haondoki kwenye nyumba n.k. Wakabaki kuzurura kwenye korido za Mahakama wee, mwisho wakakata tamaa na Mahakama, wakaona hazina msaada, wakaenda kwa Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Dar es Salaam, na huko ikashindikana.
Je, awamu hii Mahakama ilimfanyaje huyu msimamizi wa mirathi (Bi Ziada ambaye pia ni dada yake marehemu)?
NB: Nimetumia vifupisho.
-RC stands for Regional Commissioner (Mkuu wa mkoa)
-PC for Primary Court (Mahakama ya Mwanzo)
-DC for District Court (Mahakama ya Wilaya) na
-HC for High Court (Mahakama Kuu)
Further, applicants ina maana waombaji (walalamikaji) na respondent ina maanisha mjibu maombi (mlalamikiwa).
FACTS / STORI YA KILICHOTOKEA
-This was a suo motto revision by the court following complaints lodged by applicants (Beatrice Brighton Kamanga and Amanda Brighton Kamanga) alleging that the respondent who is the administratrix of the estate of their father, (the late Brighton William Kamanga,) is misappropriating the estate for her own benefit without due regard to the interests of the applicants who are children and heirs of the deceased, and that the she is using tricks in Courts to ensure that she remains with the estate at her own benefit.
Kwa kiswahili: (Kufuatia malalamiko ya watoto wa marehemu, kwamba msimamizi wa mirathi ya baba yao, anaitumia vibaya mirathi kwa faida yake mwenyewe, bila kuzingatia maslahi yao kama watoto na warithi wa marehemu, na kwamba anatumia JANJA JANJA mahakamani kuhakikisha kuwa anabaki na mirathi hiyo kwa faida yake. Ikabidi Mahakama Kuu yenyewe bila kuombwa na mtu, ifanye revision (mapitio ya maamuzi yote yaliyofanyika tangu kesi ianze).
-As aforesaid, Ziada opened the Probate in 1989 when the applicants were very young and was appointed the administratrix of the estate in PC. (Kama nilivyotangulia kusema, Bi Ziada alifungua shauri la mirathi mwaka 1988 wakati hawa watoto wakiwa bado wadogo, akateuliwa na Mahakama ya Mwanzo kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi).
-Records show that there was nothing in court from 1989 when the respondent was appointed the administratrix of the estate up to 2000. (Kuanzia hapo 1989 hakuna kilichoendelea Mahakamani mpaka mwaka 2000, kwa sababu wakati huo hawa watoto bado walikuwa wadogo).
WATOTO WALIANZA KWENDA MAHAKAMANI MWAKA 2000
-In 2000 when they grew up they filed application in DC of Kinondoni seeking revocation of the respondent for her failure to file inventories and statements of accounts and make the division of assets to heirs. (Mwaka 2000 walipokuwa wakubwa wakafungua kesi Mahakama ya Wilaya wakiomba utenguzi wa Bi Ziada kama msimamizi wa mirathi kwa kushindwa kutoa hesabu kamili ya usimamizi wa mirathi au kurejesha nakala ya mgao mahakamani ili jalada lifungwe).
-The respondent, rose objection to the status of the applicants claiming that they were not children of the deceased. (Huyu msimamizi akaweka pingamizi ambapo aliieleza Mahakama kuwa hawa sio watoto wa marehemu, akasema hajawahi kufahamu kuwa marehemu aliacha Watoto).
-Application was dismissed in 2002 on two grounds; that it was unsafe to disturb the probate which had been in existence from 1988 and for failure on the part of the applicants to show that they are children of the deceased. (Mwaka 2002, Maombi yao ya kuomba Bi Ziada atenguliwe yakatupiliwa mbali kwa vigezo viwili; Kwanza, kwamba sio busara kutibua mirathi ambayo imedumu tangu 1988 na pili, kwa sababu watoto walishindwa kuthibitisha kwamba ni watoto wa marehemu).
MWAKA 2003
-They appealed to HC in 2003 (Mwaka 2003, watoto wakakata rufaa kwenda Mahakama Kuu).
-The decision of the DC was set aside on technical points. (Yale maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Wilaya yakawekwa kando kwa masharti ya kiufundi).
-The HC had the view that the DC had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for revocation (Mahakama Kuu ikasema, Mahakama ya Wilaya haikuwa na Mamlaka ya kuyasikiliza maombi ya kutengua msimamizi).
- HC directed them to go back to PC and seek revocation (Mahakama Kuu ikawaambia warudi Mahakama ya Mwanzo waombe msimamizi atenguliwe).
-Wakaenda wakakaa.
MWAKA 2010
-In 2010 they opened a fresh matter in PC seeking appointment of Amanda Brighton Kamanga as the administratrix.
(Mwaka 2010, wakafungua shauri jipya (kesi mpya) Mahakama ya Mwanzo wakiomba mtoto wa marehemu Amanda ateuliwe kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi).
- Msimamizi wa Mirathi (ambaye ni dada wa marehemu) akawakana kuwa sio watoto wa marehemu.
-The PC declared the applicants as legal children of the deceased. (Mahakama ya Mwanzo ikatamka kuwa hawa ni watoto halali wa marehemu).
-The second applicant, Amanda Brighton Kamanga, was appointed the administratrix, without revoking the first appointment. (Mtoto wa marehemu, Amanda akateuliwa kusimamia mirathi bila kutengua yule msimamizi wa mwanzo).
-The respondent appealed to DC (yule msimamizi wa kwanza, dada wa marehemu, akakata rufaa Mahakama ya Wilaya).
-The district court found the matter to be irregular and set it aside.
-The DC vacated the decision arguing that it was wrong to open a fresh matter.
(Mahakama ya Wilaya ikaweka kando maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Mwanzo yaliyomteua Amanda kuwa msimamizi, kwa hoja kuwa walikosea kufungua kesi upya.
- They applied for revocation of the respondent at DC (Watoto wa marehemu wakaomba tena msimamizi atenguliwe katika Mahakama ya Wilaya).
-The respondent rose the question of the status of the applicants again to prove whether they’re children of the deceased. (Dada wa marehemu akaweka pingamizi tena, kwamba waombaji sio watoto wa marehemu na kwamba marehemu hakuwahi kuoa au kuacha mtoto kipindi cha uhai wake).
- After a long hearing, the court declared them lawful children of the deceased. (Baada ya mjadala mrefu, Mahakama ikawatambua kama watoto halali.
- The court ordered the respondent to handover the estate to the applicants (Mahakama ikamwamuru Bi Ziada awakabidhi mirathi watoto wa marehemu.
MWAKA 2017
- The respondent filed Revision to the DC. (Bi Ziada akaomba mapitio Mahakama ya Wilaya).
- DC vacated the findings and decisions of the PC (Mahakama ya Wilaya ikaupitia uamuzi wa Mahakama ya Mwanzo na kuuweka kando).
-Aggrieved by the decisions and in total loss of faith in the legal system, the applicants went to various places to complain. (Watoto wakiwa wamepoteza imani kabisa na mfumo wa sheria, wakaenda kulalamika maeneo mbali mbali).
-They went to the office of the RC for Dar es Salaam who made an intervention without success (wakaenda ofisi ya Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Dar es Salaam) lakini wapi.
MWAKA 2019
- Applicants returned to DC
-They made Application for extension of time to file a petition of appeal (Mwaka 2019 wakarudi Mahakama ya Wilaya kuomba waongezewe muda wa kukata rufaa).
-The application was dismissed (maombi haya nayo yalifutwa).
- Up to this time, there is (was) another pending application to review the decision of the DC made in Application for extension. (Mpaka hii kesi inaitishwa kufanyiwa Revision na Mahakama Kuu, kuna kesi nyingine tena ilikuwa ipo Mahakamani ya kuomba kupitia (kurejea) upya Maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Wilaya yaliyotolewa kwenye yale maombi ya kuomba kuongezewa muda wa kukata rufaa.
2020 - DECISION OF HC IN REVISION (MAAMUZI YA MAHAKAMA KUU KWENYE MAPITIO)
MWISHO KESI IKAENDA MAHAKAMA KUU FOR REVISION (KWA AJILI YA KUPITIWA UPYA USAHIHI WAKE).
THE HIGH COURT HAD TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS AND THE STATUS OF THE RESPONDENT AS AN ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE AND MAKE ORDERS THERETO.
-Mahakama Kuu iliomba mafaili yote ya kesi tangu ilipoanza yaletwe yapitiwe upya ili kujiridhisha kuhusu usahihi wa mwenendo wa kesi nzima na maamuzi ya Mahakama zote za chini, tangu kesi ilipoanza na uhalali wa Bi Ziada kama msimamizi wa mirathi, kisha itoe maagizo ya kufanya.
-Isipokuwa, kuna faili la kesi ya kwanza iliyomteua Bi Ziada kuwa msimamizi (1988) halikupatikana. Wakaleta nakala (copies) za barua ya kuteuliwa kuwa msimamizi (appointment letter) cheti cha kifo (death certificate) na kibali cha mazishi (burial permit).
-The HC found that the respondent who was appointed an administratrix of the estate in 1989 has not accounted for her
administration to date. No inventory and or statement of account has been filed since then. (Mahakama kuu ilikuta kwamba, Bi Ziada aliyeteuliwa kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi mwaka 1989 hajatoa hesabu ya usimamizi wake mpaka leo, yaani mpaka tarehe kesi hii inafanyiwa revision - 2020)
-Kulikuwa na nyumba tatu za marehemu Sinza Dar es Salaam (there existed three (3) houses of the deceased at Sinza Dar es Salaam).
-Bi Ziada alisema hawezi kuhama kwenye nyumba mojawapo anayoishi kwa sababu aliruhusiwa kukaa humo na marehemu na kwamba nyumba haikuwa ya marehemu ni ya wazazi wake. (She added that, she cannot vacate in the house where she is staying because she was allowed to stay there by the deceased and that the house does not belong to the deceased. It belongs to his parents).
- Applicants submitted that the house belongs to the deceased. It is registered in the name of their grandfather but it is the property of their father. (Watoto wakasema nyumba ni ya marehemu, imesajiliwa kwa jina la babu ila ni mali ya baba yao).
-The HC also found that, despite two rulings from the PC recognizing the applicants as children of the deceased, she does not want to recognize them. (Pamoja na Maamuzi mawili ya Mahakama ya Mwanzo yaliyowatambua waombaji kama watoto wa marehemu, yeye bado hataki kuwatambua).
-She was reluctant to release the assets to them. She has remained with the assets for all the years and wants to convert them to her personal assets. (Anasita kuachia / kukabidhi mirathi kwa watoto. Amezishikilia mali kwa miaka mingi na anataka kuzigeuza kwa matumizi yake binafsi).
- The applicants said that what they needed is that the assets of their late father should be handled to them now that they are grown up and adults. (Watoto wakasema wanachotaka ni kupewa mali za marehemu baba yao, kwa sababu sasa wameshakuwa watu wazima).
DECISION OF HC (UAMUZI) WA MAHAKAMA KUU:
- The HC fully supported the findings and decisions of the PC, that the applicants were children of the deceased (Mahakama Kuu ikaunga mkono yale maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Mwanzo yaliyowatambua waombaji kama watoto wa marehemu).
- Since he cared for them (kwa sababu aliwatunza).
- He introduced them to the family (aliwatambulisha nyumbani)
-They were also involved in the burial ceremonies (Walienda kumzika baba yao).
Mahakama Kuu ikasema, “Where there is credible evidence showing that the deceased took a positive step to take care and or introduce his child to his relatives, the courts should not hesitate to find that he intended him to be known as such a therefore his child under customary law.”
(Kwamba, kukiwa na ushahidi wa kuaminika unaoonesha kwamba marehemu alichukua hatua madhubuti kutunza mtoto na au kumtambulisha kwa ndugu zake, Mahakama haitasita kuamua kwamba, marehemu alidhamiria huyo mtoto atambulike, na hivyo ni mwanae kwa utaratibu wa sheria ya kimila).
Kuhusu SHERIA YA URITHI YA KIMILA (the Local Customary Law (Declaration) (No. 4) para 43, second schedule inayosema, “watoto wasio halali hawawezi kurithi upande wa kiume katika urithi usio na wosia”
Makakama ilisema, “that law is no longer valid in view of the coming into force of the Law of the Child 2009 Act. The concept of “illegitimate child”, children born out of wedlock, has no room in this country any more. Kwamba, Sheria hiyo sio halali tena baada ya kutungwa kwa Sheria ya Mtoto ya mwaka 2009. Dhana ya mtoto haramu, (kwa) watoto waliozaliwa nje ya ndoa, haina nafasi tena katika nchi hii.
Pia Mkataba wa Umoja wa Mataifa kuhusuina na Haki za Mtoto, ambao Tanzania imeridhia na kusaini, umekataza hicho kitu. (The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Tanzania is a signatory has banned that concept). Pia Sheria ya Mtoto ya mwaka 2009 ilitungwa ili kuendana na hiyo Mikataba ya kimataifa.
Hali kadhalika, section 5(2) of the Law of Child Act prohibits any type of discrimination against a child. (Kifungu cha 5(2) cha Sheria ya Mtoto ya mwaka 2009, kinakataza aina yoyote ya ubaguzi dhidi ya mtoto.
“Whether he was born with or without a valid marriage is covered there. He is not expected to be discriminated on that basis. All children are equal so to say and must enjoy equal rights.” (Haijalishi mtoto alizaliwa kwa ndoa halali au isiyo halali kifungu hiki kinamlinda. Asibaguliwe. Watoto wote ni sawa na wana haki sawa).
Mahakama Kuu ikaendelea kusema, “In this reasoning therefore, it is wrong to deny a child his rights to inherit from his father’s estate simply because he was born out of wedlock, the act which he had no control himself.” Kwa sababu hiyo, sio sahihi kumnyima mtoto haki yake ya kurithi mali ya baba yake kisa tu alizaliwa nje ya ndoa
Pia, Kifungu cha 10 cha Sheria ya mtoto kinasema “A person shall not deprive a child of reasonable enjoyment out of the estate of parent.” Kwamba mtu asimzuie mtoto ku enjoy (kunufaika) na mali za Mzazi.
Maana ya Mzazi imeelezewa katika kifungu cha tatu cha Sheria ya Mtoto kuwa ni, “a biological father or mother”, the adoptive father or mother and any other person under whose care a child has been committed.” Kwamba Mzazi ni baba au mama kibayolojia (wa kukuzaa kabisa), au anayetokana na kuasiliwa, pia mzazi ni mtu mwingine yeyote ambaye mtoto amewekwa chini ya uangalizi wake.
Mwisho, Mahakama ikaamua kwamba, “the applicants have a right to inherit from the deceased despite the fact that there was no official marriage between their father and their mothers.” Kwamba hawa watoto kwenye hii kesi, wana haki ya kurithi mali za marehemu hata kama ni kweli kwamba hapakuwa na ndoa rasmi kati ya baba na mama zao”
LEGALITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS & DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURT
Kuhusu usahihi wa mwenendo wa kesi nzima na maamuzi yote ya Mahakama za chini, Mahakama Kuu ilisema, “the proceedings and the decision of the DC (in application for revocation) of 2001 was correctly vacated by this Court because the DC had no jurisdiction to revoke the appointment of the respondent. That was in the domain of the court which appointed her meaning the PC.”
(Kwamba, yale maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Wilaya yaliyotokana na maombi ya watoto wa marehemu kuomba msimamizi wa mirathi atenguliwe, yalitupiliwa mbali kiusahihi na Mahakama Kuu, kwa sababu Mahakama ya Wilaya haikuwa na mamlaka ya kumtengua msimamizi wa mirathi. Hilo lilikuwa ndani ya mipaka ya Mahakama iliyomteua, kumaanisha Mahakama ya Mwanzo).
“The proceedings & decisions of the PC in Probate Cause of 2010 (a fresh matter seeking the appointment of Amanda Brighton Kamanga as the administratrix of the estate, in which the court declared the applicants as legal children of the deceased and appointed Amanda Brighton Kamanga, the administratrix of the estate of the deceased. But, on appeal, the DC vacated the decision arguing that it was wrong to open a fresh matter) WERE WRONGLY VACATED by the DC in Appeal, because the administrator had lost his mandate by the time, which was 21 years by then, for failure to account for her administration as required by rule 10 of GN 149 of 1971.”
Kwamba, “yale maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Wilaya kwenye shauri la mirathi la mwaka 2010, (ambapo watoto wa marehemu walifungua kesi mpya Mahakama ya Mwanzo kuomba mtoto wa marehemu, Amanda Brighton Kamanga ateuliwe kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi, na Mahakama ya Mwanzo ikawatambua kama watoto halali wa marehemu, ikamteua Amanda Brighton Kamanga, kuwa msimamizi wa mirathi, lakini kwenye kusikiliza rufaa, Mahakama ya Wilaya ikayakataa ikisema kuwa haikuwa sahihi kufungua kesi upya), MAAMUZI HAYO YALIKATALIWA KIMAKOSA, kwa sababu msimamizi wa mirathi alikuwa ameshapoteza mamlaka yake wakati huo, ambapo ilikuwa ni miaka 21, tangu ashindwe kutoa hesabu ya usimamizi kwa mujibu wa sheria).
“Where the administrator has failed to file his inventory and statement of account for a period exceeding four months and he remains so for a long time without extension from the court which appointed him, his appointment becomes invalid and comes to an end by operation of the law.” (Msimamizi akishindwa kutoa hesabu ya mirathi kwa muda unaozidi miezi minne na akae muda mrefu bila kuomba kuongezewa muda na Mahakama iliyomteua, uteuzi wake unaisha kisheria).
“The applicants were therefore correct in the circumstances, and particularly after missing the record of the earlier file, to open a fresh file altogether to deal with the matter. (Hivyo, katika mazingira hayo watoto walikuwa sahihi kufungua kesi mpya, ukizingatia faili la kesi ya kwanza lilikuwa halipo).
Mwisho, Mahakama ilitengua maamuzi yote, ikapitisha tu maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Mwanzo kwenye kesi ya mwaka 2010 ya kumteua Amanda Brighton Kamanga kuwa msimamizi wa Mirathi, zikiwemo nyumba tatu, Sinza, Dar es Salaam. Bi Ziada akaagizwa kumkabidhi mirathi, Amanda Brighton Kamanga ambaye sasa ataisimamia.
-The HC revised & vacated the proceedings and decisions of the lower courts, but uphold the proceedings and decisions of the Primary Court in Probate and Administration Cause No. 43 of 2010.
-Amanda Brighton Kamanga was appointed as the administratrix of the estate of the late Brighton William Kamanga which include the three (3) houses in Sinza Dar es Salaam. The respondent was directed to handle the estate to Amanda Brighton Kamanga who should administer the estate.
Unaweza ku share lakini usibadili yaliyomo.
Yours Sincerely,
Zakaria (0754575246),
Hobby : Strong writing and editing skills.
