From Judges to Administrators: The Unexpected Judgment Changing Tanzanian Inheritance Law
In a groundbreaking decision (Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2024), the Court of Appeal of Tanzania has redefined the role of probate courts in intestate succession. In Peter Augustino Mrema v. Doris Agness Mkandala, the Court held that probate courts have no power to determine who qualifies as a spouse, whether a child is the deceased’s biological offspring, or which law governs estate distribution. These are matters left entirely to the estate administrator once appointed.
The case arose from a dispute between a son seeking to administer his father’s estate and a woman claiming to be the widow. She filed a caveat, alleging certain children were excluded and assets were missing. The High Court sided with her, declared the disputed children lawful heirs, and held that the Indian Succession Act applied—because the deceased was Christian.
The Court of Appeal reversed. It emphasized that Probate Courts must limit themselves to assessing the suitability of a proposed Administrator. Once appointed, the Administrator—not the Court—has full authority to determine beneficiaries and choose the applicable law. Any disputes about marriage, paternity, or succession law must be handled separately. This decision aligns with earlier appellate cases like Mariam Juma v. Tabea Robert Makange (2016) and Stephen Maliyatabu v. Consolata Kahulananga (2023), but goes further by holding that even the choice of succession law is outside the Probate Court’s jurisdiction.
It marks a sharp departure from older High Court decisions such as Re Innocent Mbilinyi [1969] HCD 283 and Abdallah Shante v. Mussa [1972] HCD 9, which had empowered courts to investigate the deceased’s “mode of life” when selecting applicable law. Those precedents now stand overruled to the extent they contradict this binding judgement.
While the decision may reduce Court interference and streamline probate, it also raises serious concerns. Administrators now hold significant discretion—potentially excluding heirs or applying laws that benefit their side. Vulnerable beneficiaries like widows or children born out of wedlock may be left out unless they pursue litigation.
Mrema signals a shift: Probate Judges now take a back seat in ensuring fairness during inheritance. The burden now shifts to the Administrator—and to those who may need to challenge them. It reinforces the need for proper estate planning. In the absence of a will, a single individual may now control everything.
🔗 For a more detailed analysis of this decision, its historical context, and legal contradictions, click the link below:
