Philemon Vanai Saiteru Mollel vs William Titus Mollel, & another, Civil Appeal No 407 of 2021.

This case provide as administrator of estate if deceased can not sell the property of deceased before transfer of ownnership to his or her name. The facts as below.

The facts giving rise to the appeal are not intricate. Before the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, the respondents William Titus Molle! and Peter Fridolin Temu being the administrators of the estate of late Titus Aron Moliel sued Philemon Vanai Saiteru Moliel (the appellant) alleging trespass to the suit properties. The respondents prayed for an order of permanent injunction and general damages for the alleged trespass.

On his part, the appellant vehemently refuted all the claims. 

He contended that the disputed properties did not form part of the estate of 

the late Titus Aron Moliel. It was his further claim that the suit properties were legally owned by him having bought from Jimmy Titus Moliel, a legitimate child of the late Titus Aron Moliel. He thus prayed to the trial court to dismiss the respondents’ suit with costs. After the trial, the 

learned trial judge was satisfied that, all plots constituting the suit properties registered in the deceased’s name were part of his estate in which the respondents were the administrators. TTie trial judge also found that the purported sale between Jimmy Titus Moliel and the appellant was 

invalid and inoperative for transferring the interest in the suit properties to the appellant. Consequently, the trial court declared the appellant a trespasser followed by an order evicting him therefrom.

The (earned trial judge found that even if Jimmy Titus Mollel was 

appointed administrator, he could not dispose the deceased’s estate as 

his own properties. The learned judge held further that; the appellant did 

not purchase the suit properties in good faith because he admitted that 

the sale agreement for plot No. 29 was not signed.

We agree with the trial judge that the appellant did not purchase the suit properties in good faith for reasons: One; in July, 2009 when the appellant alleged to buy Plot No. 29, Jimmy Titus Mollel was yet to be appointed as administrator of the estate of the late Titus Aron Mollel and, 

two; it is on record that before purchasing the suit properties, the appellant conducted a search with the Land Registry on the ownership and found the same to be in the name of Titus Aron Mollel. 

Therefore, the appellant had knowledge that the vendor had no right to sell. That 

notwithstanding, he went ahead with the sale as if Jimmy Titus Mollel was the owner of the suit properties.

In the premises, we find no reason to fault the findings of the trial court. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and we dismiss it with