Zadjiya Hassan v Hadija Noor and Mrs. Nsungwa Constance (Civil suit No. 1 of 1992)
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
Held: the will did not comply with section 50 of the Succession Act because it was not properly attested by two witnesses in the testator's presence. The deceased died intestate. The application for probate was incompetent as the plaintiff applied singly, excluding four co-executors named in the will. Both defendants remained lawful wives of the deceased under Islamic law at his death. The plaintiff was not a fit person to administer the estate, having shown no care for all beneficiaries. The Administrator General was appointed to administer the estate.
Outcome
Application dismissed; Administrator General appointed to administer the estate
Facts
The plaintiff, Zadjiya Hassan, brought an action under section 265 of the Succession Act to remove caveats lodged by the defendants against the grant of probate to the estate of the late Noor Hussein Gamukama, who died on 21 June 1991. The plaintiff claimed she was a lawful wife religiously wedded to the deceased on 5 October 1978 and was named executor in his will. The first defendant, Hadija Noor, averred she was officially wedded to the deceased in August 1983 under Mohammedan law and challenged the will's validity, alleging undue influence and improper attestation. The second defendant, Constance Nsungwa, married the deceased on 26 May 1971 according to Islamic law and had seven children. She also contested the will's validity, alleging it did not make reasonable provision for dependants and that the deceased lacked mental capacity. The deceased left a will naming five executors, but the plaintiff applied for probate alone. Evidence showed the will was signed by only one witness in the testator's presence.
Issues
- Whether the application for probate is competent.
- Whether the will dated 23rd April 1991 is valid.
- Whether the first and second defendants were wives of the deceased at the time of his death.
- Whether the plaintiff is capable of administering the estate.
- In the case there is any short coming, who should administer the estate.
Orders
- Application for probate dismissed with costs.
- The Administrator General is appointed to administer the estate of the late Noor Hussein Gamukama.
- The powers of the interim caretaker cease upon the Administrator General taking over administration.
- The interim caretaker must make an inventory and pass the same to the Administrator General.
- Copy of judgment to be sent to the Administrator General for necessary action.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Succession Act Cap 139 s.50(1)
- Succession Act Cap 139 s.265
- Succession Act Cap 139 s.238
- Succession Amendment Decree 22 of 1972 s.46A
- Succession Amendment Decree 22 of 1972 s.48B
- Succession Amendment Decree 22 of 1972 s.251A(b)
- Administrator General Act Cap 140 s.6
- Wills Act 1837 s.9
- Succession Act Cap 139 s.184
Cases cited (6)
- In the Estate of Pardoe [1951] 2 All ER 20
- In Re Chalcraft [1943] Ch 222
- In the Estate of Keigwin [1945] Ch 7
- Brown v Skirrow [1902] Probate 130
- Blake v Blake [1988] 2 All ER
- In the Estate of Holland [1933] JLR LT 417
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.