Fatma v Administrator General, Zanzibar Protectorate (Privy Council Appeal No. 81 of 1947)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Privy Council held that the Zanzibar Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree of 1890 prohibited all transfers of slaves, including private gifts, not merely commercial transactions. The Decree prevented Panya from passing from Binti Juma to Hafidh as a slave. Since one essential element of the appellant's claim under Ibadhi law was that her mother must have become Hafidh's slave, and this could not be legally established, the appellant could not succeed in her claim to inherit from her father's estate. Appeal dismissed.
Outcome
Appellant's claim to succeed to her father's estate dismissed
Facts
Panya was the slave of Binti Juma, who was the mother of Hafidh bin Muhammad el-Busaidi. Binti Juma allegedly gave Panya to her son Hafidh as a slave concubine (suria). The appellant claimed to be the daughter of Hafidh and Panya and sought to inherit a share of Hafidh's estate under Ibadhi law. The trial court found that Binti Juma had given Panya as slave concubine to Hafidh, that he accepted her in that capacity, that the appellant was the offspring of that union, and that Hafidh acknowledged the appellant as his daughter. The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa reversed, finding the facts insufficient to establish the claim. The gift was made no later than 1907, before the Slavery Decree of 1909 but after the Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree of 1890.
Issues
- Whether the appellant established that her mother Panya ceased to be the slave of Binti Juma and became the slave of Hafidh.
- Whether Hafidh acknowledged the appellant as his daughter.
- Whether the Zanzibar Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree of 1890 prohibited the transfer of Panya from Binti Juma to Hafidh as a slave concubine.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to succeed to her father's estate under Ibadhi law.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Zanzibar Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree, 1st August 1890 s.3
- Zanzibar Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree, 1st August 1890 s.4
- Zanzibar Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree, 1st August 1890 s.5
- Zanzibar Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree, 1st August 1890 s.9
- Slavery Decree of 1909
Cases cited (3)
- Abdool Razack v Aga Mahomed Jaffer Bindaneem (1893) 21 LR IA 56
- Ashrufood Dowlah Ahmed Hossein Khan Bahadoor v Hyder Hossein Khan (1866) 11 Moore's Ind App Cases 94
- Habibur Rahman Chowdhury v Altaf Ali Chowdhury (1921) 48 LR IA 114
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.