IDDI IBRAHIM v AMRI SHABANI 1989 TLR 89 (HC)

 IDDI IBRAHIM v AMRI SHABANI 1989 TLR 89 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania- Dodoma

Judge Samatta J

23 May, 1989

Flynote

Civil Practice and Procedure - Right to sue - Whether a female who has attained the

age B of majority can sue or be sued in her own name.

-Headnote

Gole Shukia inherited a farm of her deceased father. A brother of the deceased who

was an administrator of the deceased estate was in occupation of the farm. A male

near C relative of Gole instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the farm on

behalf of Gole.

One of the issues considered and decided by the court was on the locus standi of a

female who has attained majority. D

Held: The general rule of law is that any female who has attained, in terms of s.2 of

the Age of Majority Ordinance, Cap.431, full age has the right to institute proceedings

in a court of law in her own name or individual capacity unassisted. E

Case Information

Appeal allowed.

[zJDz]Judgment

Samatta, J.: This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court of Iramba affirming

the decision of the Primary Court of Nduguti whereby a claim by the respondent for

recovery of possession of a six-acre farm was allowed. F

I have reached the settled conclusion, having given the matter anxious and, I hope,

careful consideration, that the decisions of the two courts below cannot be allowed to

stand. The respondent's case was simply this. Some years prior to 1979 his elder G

brother, Chandewa Kititi, permitted the appellant to use his (Chandewa's) six-acre

farm for cultivation purposes. In l979, following the death of Chandewa, he became

or was appointed administrator of the deceased's estate. Eventually, the six-acre farm

was inherited by the deceased's daughter known as Gole Shukia. When called upon to

give H possession of the farm to the woman, the appellant refused to do so, asserting

that the farm was his property. The respondent reacted to that refusal by instituting

the proceedings which have given rise to the appeal now before me. The appellant's

answer to the suit was that the six-acre farm was his property, having developed the

land I himself.

1989 TLR p90

SAMATTA J

The appellant has invited me to determine the appeal on its merits, but I am clearly of

A opinion that it is not possible in law to do so. Why am I of that opinion? That I will

tell. The evidence adduced by the respondent clearly reveals that when the suit was

instituted in the Primary Court the farm in question had already been inherited by

Gole Shukia, B who in l983 was, according to the record of the case, aged 30. It must

be correct to say that, as far as the farm is concerned, the office of administrator,

which the respondent assumed on the death of his elder brother, came to an end

when the estate in the farm descended to Gole Shukia. If Gole wished to acquire

possession of the farm, then she C herself should have instituted the proceedings.

His office of administrator of the deceased's estate having come to an end, the

respondent ceased to have locus standi in the matter. It would appear that the

respondent instituted the proceedings in his own name because he entertained the

view that, being a female, Gole lacked legal capacity to D institute proceedings

before a court of law. Nothing is further from the truth than that notion. Whatever

the position might have been in the past, now the general rule of law (and it is

obvious justice) is that any female who has attained, in terms of s. 2 of the Age E of

Majority Ordinance (Chapter 431), full age has the right to institute proceedings in a

court of law in her own name or individual capacity unassisted. The notion that a

woman can institute legal proceedings only through her father or other male relative

is a notion of the past, which our law now rejects as being entirely erroneous. It is an

F incontrovertible proposition of law that a woman does not need a guardian to assist

her in institution or prosecuting a suit in a court of law. Once she reaches the age of

majority, a female, like a male, ceases to be a minor and can sue or be sued in her own

name. The law treats her as having full legal capacity. A woman in this country can

now stand up and loudly say: G

I am a major and have the undeniable right to personally look after my legal

interests. I need no guardian.

And, lawyers would nod to signify their assent. H

The appeal is allowed, the decision of both courts below are set aside. The respondent

(Amri Shabani) will pay the appellant's costs in the two courts and this court. For the

I avoidance of doubt, it must be stated that Gole Shukia is at liberty in law to

institute civil

1989 TLR p91

proceedings against the appellant for the recovery of possession of the six-acre farm.

A

Appeal allowed.

1989 TLR p91

B