Mahawa v. Mahawa (PC) Civ. App. 147-M-70; 7/9/71 Jonathan, Ag. J.

 Mahawa v. Mahawa (PC) Civ. App. 147-M-70; 7/9/71 Jonathan, Ag. J.

The appellant unsuccessfully, in the primary and district magistrate courts, objected to the seizure and attachment of his 27 head of cattle in satisfaction of a debt of a deceased relative and owed to the respondent. The argument of the latter was that the appellant’s cattle were seized because he had inherited the deceased’s properties and therefore his liability. It was established that the deceased has several children, some of them male, and the appellant had been successor to the wives.

            Held: (1) “[T] he appellant’s relationship to [the deceased] was no closer than that of a maternal uncle, it seems unlikely that he would properly have inherited any property of the deceased. The Local Customary Law (Declaration) (No. 4) Order, 1963, applied to Musoma District where this matter originated. Sections 1 and 26 of the 2^nd Schedule to the Order clearly precluded the appellant from inheriting the deceased’s property [when there are children] and I think it is for this reason that the district court found that the appellant’s role was that of administrator. The appellant may have been appointed to inherit the deceased’s wives, but that did not appoint him to succeed to his property as well. It seems clear that the primary court came, to the conclusion that the appellant inherited the deceased’s property, merely on account of his appointment, by the family council, merely on account of his appointment, by the family council, to inherit the deceased’s wives. In my view, that was a wrong conclusion.” (2) “Accepting the …….. finding that he was appointed administrator, I cannot see why his own property should be resorted to in paying up debts owed by the deceased’s estate. Sections 12 and 13 of the schedule cited above make it clear that the debts of a deceased person should be realised from his estate, and that if the estate cannot meet them, the heirs should bear such amount as the estate cannot meet. I am aware of no authority that a person appointed to administer or distribute property of a deceased person to his heirs should, impso facto, personally be called upon to meet outstanding debts of the deceased, in any event.” (3) Appeal allowed.