Court Guides on Time Limitation for Recovery of Land in Relation to Probate Matters in Tanzania

Recently, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania (the Court) delivered its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 529 of 2021 between Lesusu Lesilale Saiduraki (the Appellant) and Melayeki Saiduraki Laizer (the Respondent and Administrator of the Estate of the Late Lekimboyipoi Saiduraki) by allowing the appeal and reminding all heirs to be vigilant in taking action timely for the recovery of the deceased’s land and in managing probate matters.

Background

The appeal originated from a High Court case involving the Appellant who was declared to be a mere invitee to the suit land and was ordered to vacate the land. The trial court allowed the Respondent to manage the estate/land under administratorship. In terms of background, following the demise of Lekimboyipoi Saiduraki in 2002, his descendants and relatives continued to use the entire suit land until 2008 when the Appellant approached Sanai Lekimboyipoi (the elder son of the late Lekimboyipoi) seeking permission to use the suit land. Being relatives, Sanai, in his capacity of being the elder son of the late Lekimboyipoi, allowed the Appellant to use the suit land on condition that he only cultivates seasonal crops. In 2014, Sanai discovered that the Appellant had made some permanent developments which aggrieved the Respondent and requested the Appellant to vacate the land.

The Appellant refused to vacate the land even when he was requested by the elders.  Later in 2016, Sinai was appointed administrator of the deceased’s estate and filed a case in the High Court at Arusha against the Respondent, praying for orders that the suit land be declared to be part of the estate of the late Lekimboyipoi Saiduraki; order evicting the Appellant; and a permanent injunctive order restraining the Appellant, his agents, and workmen or any other person. The trial court ruled that the Appellant could not claim adverse possession, and declared the Appellant to be a mere invitee. Being aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant preferred his appeal before the Court for determination. It is noted that while the appeal was pending in the Court, Sanai Lekimboyipoi passed away and was substituted by Melayeki Saiduraki Laizer as administrator of the deceased’s estate.

Arguments Raised by Parties

The Appellant vigorously contested that the suit was time barred; he emphasized that the time to recover the land of the deceased must be within twelve years. The Appellant explained that the original owner died in 2002; the former administrator was appointed in 2016 and filed the suit to claim the suit land in 2016 which was almost 14 years from the date of death of his father (original owner). As such, all that makes the suit be time barred.

The Respondent on the other side claimed that the suit was timely filed in line with section 9(2) of the Law of Limitation Act. It was argued that the Appellant entered that land in 2008 after being invited by Sanai Lekimboyipoi (the heir). The Appellant was invited not by the late original owner, hence the right of action accrued in 2014 when the Appellant breached the oral agreement with the Respondent. Thus, the suit was not time barred.

Decision of the Court

The Court, in determining the matter, raised the question as to whether the High Court erred in law and fact by determining a suit that was time-barred. Acknowledging all parties’ arguments, the Court chose to interpret the provisions of the law plainly. The Court held that the law does not exclude the time from the date of death of the deceased to the date of appointment of the administrator. In this regard, as the Court held, when Sanai was appointed as the administrator of the estate of the late Lekimboyipoi Saiduraki  in 2016, twelve years for the recovery of the deceased’s land who died in 2002 had already lapsed; hence there could be no competent suit instituted  to recover the deceased’s land.

Further, the Court observed that the right to sue must be reckoned from the date of the deceased’s death (the original owner, late Lekimboyipoi Saiduraki) and not at the pleasure of the heirs. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal; quashed the proceedings and the judgment of the High Court; set aside the consequential orders thereto; and gave no order as to costs of the suit.