Tanzania independence hero Sykes' family in multi-billion property wrangle

Dar es Salaam. The family of independence icon, the late Ally Kleist Sykes, is embroiled in a court battle over the size and control of multibillion-shilling assets he left behind in Africa and UK.

At the centre of the dispute is Sykes’ eldest son, Abraham Ally Sykes, who has accused his siblings of concealing assets left behind by their deceased father and their actual value.

The High Court recently rejected a plea by Abraham to revoke a probate granted to Mluguru Paula Sykes, Khwemah Ally, Abdul Sykes and Alhaj Araff Sykes. The first two also administer the estate of Sykes’ widow, Zainab.

Abraham alleges that his siblings have hidden the size of the family’s true wealth in an inventory filed in court. He had sought orders that the court remove them from administering the estate in his favour.

“The applicant (Abraham) has made no effort to convince the court that what is considered to be a missing list of the assets is really in existence and constitutes part of the deceased’s estate,” ruled Judge Mustapha Ismail.

The late Sykes was an independence activist, and one of the 17 founding members of the Tanganyika African National Union (Tanu).

He died of heart failure at the Aga Khan Hospital in Nairobi on May 19, 2013 at the age of 87, and was buried the following day at the Kisutu Cemetery in Dar es Salaam.

The World War II veteran, who served in the King’s African Rifles, left behind multibillion-shilling assets in Tanzania, the UK and some cities across Africa.

Sykes owned and operated commercial complexes in Harare, Johannesburg and London, and had shares in various companies in Kenya.

Sykes also owned properties in Dar es Salaam, Arusha, Morogoro and Tanga.

He also owned farms in a number of regions in mainland Tanzania.

“He had wealth everywhere, I will not be surprised to hear that his family was unaware of his other properties. He had a lot of money,” a source close to Syke’s family told The Citizen.

He also left behind hundreds of millions of shillings in local as well as overseas banks.

Before his death, Sykes appointed his wife and two of his sons as executors of his will, placing his vast wealth under their control.

As the legal process requires, the three were recognised by the High Court in March 2018 and given the mandate to execute the will, and distribute assets to the intended beneficiaries.

They were subsequently ordered to file with the court within one month an inventory and accounts of the their late businessman’s estate.

It is this list of properties filed on January 30, 2020 that is at the centre of dispute between the executors and Abraham.

Abraham accused the executors of concealing the actual value of some of the assets constituting the estate of their late father. In his last will, Sykes appointed his late wife, Zainab Sykes, his son Abdul and his last-born Alhaj Araf Sykes as executors of his will, leaving out his first-born, Abraham.

Dispute unfolds

Soon after the death of the property tycoon, the three executors filed a petition asking the court to recognise and grant them probate.

It emerged, however, that Abraham had at the same time petitioned the same court to grant him letter to administer his father’s assets.

Initially, Abraham had refused to recognise the will allegedly left behind by his father, and claimed that the one that was presented in court was forged.

The two matters were consolidated and in 2014 Judge Edson Mkasimongwa issued the court’s decision in which he recognised the will, approved the three executors and dismissed Abraham’s petition for letter of administration.

Abraham made his second attempt to oust the executors of the will following a delay in filing an inventory and accounts of the estate of their father.

He considered the delay an infraction of the law used the delay as a basis for initiating a fresh application in which he had sought to be appointed administrator.

The court turned down his request and directed the executors of the will to file an inventory within one month from the date of the decision.

It is the inventory that was filed on January 1, 2020 that triggered yet another bitter inheritance row in the Syke’s family.

According to Abraham, the inventory was untrue and did not reflect actual accounts concerning the estate of their father.

The Citizen has learnt that by June 25, 2016, two years after Syke’s death, his bank account at NMB Bank House Branch had Sh910.9 million.

“The inventory shows the income from NIC Bank Administration Operation is Sh355.3 million while as of October 6th, 2018 after they had been appointed executors, the said account had 997 million. Therefore, the executors have willfully and without justifiable cause concealed Sh623.6 million,”Abraham claimed.

He also alleged that while the inventory filed in court in 2016 showed there was $452,592 in Barclays Bank, minutes of a family meeting prepared in October 2018 show the same account had $113,047.

He also accuse the executors of not disclosing fixed deposit accounts left behind by their father.

According to court records, the late Sykes was a majority shareholder in Sykes Insurance Consultants Limited with 20,000 shares valued at Sh200,000.

“By virtue of being the majority shareholder, my late father owned properties located on plot number 15, Block E, Golindoi Road Arusha. Respondents have not include it in their inventory,” Abraham further claimed.

Forming part of the dispute is a property in London owned by the late Sykes. The property with title number 390343 is recorded in Her Majesty’s Land Register, Crydon Office, on 27 Briadale Gardens, London.

It is currently under tenancy agreement at 3,776.50 sterling pounds per month.

“No convincing evidence”

But in its recent decision, the High Court entirely turned down Abraham’s request for revocation of probate granted to his siblings.

“While I take note of the allegations of concealment of properties and falsification of the inventory, the applicant has not given any semblance of evidence that proves that the list of assets exhibited through the inventory was falsified or concealed with a view to defrauding the beneficiaries, specifically the applicant,” said the judge.