CEDAW/C/60/D/48/2013 have applied the same codified customary law that they are seeking to challenge 18 and would not necessarily have considered the principle of equality in adjudicating the matter. The authors recall that they cited various cases during the proceedings to demonstrate that courts have applied customary law to the detriment of widows and daughters. 19 The authors further stress that the Court of Appeal has explicitly ruled that parties could not challenge the constitutionality of a law in an app eal before a subordinate court and that such an appeal had to be filed with the High Court. 20 3.11 The authors call upon the Committee to request that they be permitted to inherit their equal share under the Indian Succession Act, 21 be granted the right to serve as administrators of the estates, as provided in the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, 22 and be provided with compensation for their financial and emotional loss. Furthermore, they request that the Committee recommend that the discriminatory provisions of the Local Customary Law (Declaration) (No 4.) Order be abolished and the provisions of the Indian Succession Act regarding inheritance and of the Probate and Administration of Estates Act regarding administration rights be applied to women who are still subject to customary inheritance rules. Alternatively, they request that the Committee recommend that legislation be enacted with a view to guaranteeing women equal rights to administer and inherit property, including clan land, in line with the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4. The communication was transmitted to the State party on 21 January 2013. The State party was requested to provide its observations on the admissibility and the merits by 22 July 2013. In the absence of any response, a first reminder was sent on 19 August 2013 and a second reminder on 31 January 2014. A third reminder was sent on 2 June 2014, in which the State party was informed that the Committee would examine the communication on the basis of the information available on file. __________________ 18 19 20 21 22 8/13 The authors refer to the Judicature and Application of Laws Act. Section 11 provides for all courts that “customary law shall be applicable to, and courts shall exercise jurisdiction in accordance therewith in, matters of a civil nature — (a) between members of a community in which rules of customary law relevant to the matter are established and accepted, … (b) relating to any matter of status of, or succession to, a person who is or was a member of a community in which rules of customary law relevant to the matter are established and accepted”. The authors further refer to Benedict v. Benedict, in which none of the widows inherited any property according to customary Haya law. The Court of Appeal stated that, “eve n if the appellant had properly challenged the administration of the estate of her late husband, she would not have succeeded, since her matrimonial right of residence upon death of her husband is under customary law concomitant with her right to live with her children in a house of her deceased husband”. The authors refer to Isaa v. Mututa and Nteme v. Hassani and Baruti, with the latter cited for this point by Ephrahim v. Pastory and Another. The authors explain that, under the Indian Succession Act, men and women of the same relationship to the deceased receive the same share of inheritance. They submit that, pursuant to paragraph 29 of the Act, they would each be entitled to one third of the estate and the remaining two thirds would be allocated to their children. The authors explain that, under the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, gender -neutral administration rights are granted in various inheritance proceedings. Primary courts do not have jurisdiction to apply the Act. They state that, pursuant to section 33 of the Act, they have an “immediate interest” in the estates and are “entitled” to a share of them under the Indian Succession Act. 15-05820