Court rejects Jacqueline Mengi's application for review of late husband's will revocation

Tanzanian billionaire Reginald Mengi, who died on May 2, 2019 while undergoing treatment in Dubai, and widow Jacqueline Ntuyabaliwe Mengi. PHOTO | FILE
What you need to know:
- The case originates from a probate matter concerning the estate of the late Reginald Mengi, who died on May 2, 2019, in Dubai.
Arusha. The Court of Appeal has dismissed the review application filed by Jacqueline Ntuyabaliwe Mengi, the widow of the late Reginald Abraham Mengi.
Jacqueline and her children had been contesting the revocation of a will by the High Court which had previously declared it invalid.
In the case, Jacqueline Mengi sought to have the court review and overturn the decision that dismissed their application for a review of the High Court’s judgment which had rejected the will.
However, in the review case number 748/01 of 2022, the court rejected their application, stating that the reasons provided were insufficient.
The decision, delivered by a three-judge panel consisting of Rehema Mkuye (head of the panel), Abraham Mwampashi, and Zainabu Muruke, concluded that the reasons given were not grounds for a review but rather for an appeal.
The decision, written by Judge Muruke on behalf of the panel and issued on August 5, 2024, is available on the Tanzlii court website.
Background of the case
The case originates from a probate matter concerning the estate of the late Reginald Mengi, who died on May 2, 2019, in Dubai.
The probate case number 39/2019 was filed in the High Court of Dar es Salaam by Mengi’s relative, Benson Benjamini Mengi, alongside three others: William Onesmo Mushi, Zoebu Hassuji, and Sylvia Novatus Mushi.
They sought to be appointed as the administrators of the estate according to the will purportedly left by Mengi.
The will allegedly granted Jacqueline and her children sole inheritance rights to all of Mengi’s assets.
However, Mengi’s eldest child, Abdiel Reginald Mengi, and Mengi’s younger brother, Benjamini Abraham Mengi, challenged the validity of the will.
On March 18, 2021, Judge Yose Mlyambina ruled in favour of the objections, declaring the will invalid on the grounds that it unfairly excluded other children of the deceased and improperly included assets from Mengi’s first wife, Mercy Anna Mengi, whom he had divorced.
Judge Mlyambina appointed Abdiel and Benjamini as administrators of the estate, directing that Mengi’s assets be distributed according to the standard procedure for cases without a will.
Jacqueline and her children, through their lawyer Audax Kahendaguza, filed a review application with the Court of Appeal, requesting the court to overturn the High Court’s ruling and the appointment of Abdiel and Benjamini, and instead appoint the original petitioners.
The Court of Appeal dismissed this review application on December 1, 2022, with a panel of three judges: Rehema Mkuye (head), Dr Paul Kihwelu, and Panterine Kente, citing that the review application lacked merit.
The court concluded that the objections raised were related to the appeal process and not grounds for a review of the previous judgment.
Reasons for the appeal and court’s decision
The applicants argued that there were clear errors in the case records that led to a miscarriage of justice and that their review application had not been given proper consideration.
However, the court found that the issues raised were not clear errors and had already been addressed in the appeal. The court emphasised that the review application was an attempt to reargue the appeal, which is not permissible in a review.
The court also rejected claims of not being given a fair hearing, stating that all parties had been heard regarding the objections.
The court further concluded that the challenge to the authority of the court to hear the initial objection was unfounded, and that the review application did not meet the criteria for review under Rule 60(1)(a) to (e) of the Court Rules.
The court determined that the grounds for the review were essentially grounds for an appeal and not for a review.
In summary, the court dismissed the review application, stating that the claims did not hold merit and were not sufficient to overturn the previous ruling.