Herman, by his will in 1953, made the respondent a beneficiary provided that the latter looked after his needs. The respondent spent Shs. 6,280/50 up to 1967, when Herman changed his
will in favour of the appellant because he claimed the respondent did not build a new house for him. The lower courts thought that a will is “property” for they held “according to customary law nobody can be deprived of a property for which he has offered ‘appropriation gifts’ even if he has done something to his father,” and since the respondent had paid ‘appropriation gifts’, he was entitled to the will.
Held: (1) A customary heir may challenge a will if he is disinherited by a testator who is alive. But this cannot be done by an ordinary beneficiary and neither the respondent nor the appellant was a customary heir. Herman then was free to revoke his wil
“The true position between the respondent and Herman is that on the basis of a promise to make the former heir to a shamba he has spent monies in the interest of Herman …. The true nature of the claim was a claim for damages for breach of contract”.
