Saada Rashidi vs Abdallah Rashidi, civil appeal no 12 of 2020.

This case provide for Remedy for party who claims that administrator does not distribute well estate or inerich himself for estate of deceased.

I wish to go back to the case of Ahmed Mohamed A1 Laamar, in this case as already elaborated earlier the Court maintained on the trial court to be functus officio to determine a matter which has already been closed however the court went further to elaborate the remedies available to parties whoever wishes to challenge the probate and stated as follows; “…One, if the respondents genuinely believe that the appellant acted in excess of his mandate or wasted the estate and / or subjected it to damage or occasioned any loss to it through negligence, they are free to sue him. Two, if they are also convinced that he either fraudulently converted some properties forming part of the estate, and / or that he deliberately exhibited a false inventory or account, they are equally free to institute criminal proceedings against him in accordance with the provisions of the governing laws”

This state of affairs does not however mean that a person who claims to be an heir of Salima Makusudi and who has not got his or her rightful share of the deceased’s estate, has no remedy at law.

Far from it, The remedy for such person, like the respondent, is to sue for the recovery of his or her share of the estate of the deceased, Salima Makusudi from any person who is in possession of it.”

and the order closing the Probate and Administration Cause were clear and effective that, the deceased’s properties aforementioned have been distributed to all deceased’s heirs and that such estate shall remain under the care of both administrators.

Hence, if any of the beneficiaries or administrators does anything contrary to what was mutually agreed by the deceased person’s heirs and the same being duly recorded by the trial court, may institute a civil case or criminal case depending on the nature of disputable act (s).