CEDAW/C/60/D/48/2013 2.5 E.S. entered into customary marriage with M.M. in 1989. She is a tailor and has three children: two daughters, C.M., born in 1990, and H.M., born in 1992, and a son, S.M., born in 1995. During her marriage, she and her husband jointly acquired the house in which they lived, which formed part of her husband’s estate. Her husband died in 1999. Immediately thereafter, her brother-in-law ordered her to vacate the house where she was living, and she was told that under Sukuma customary law she could not inherit her husband’s estate. She applied to the Shinyanga Urban Primary Court Probate in order to serve as administrator of the estate. Pursuant to local customary inheritance laws, the court awarded letters of administration to her brother-in-law, who has been using the estate for his personal profit, renting out the property. E.S. had to leave the house with her three minor children (of 9, 7 and 4 years of age, respectively) and live with her parents in a neighbouring district without any support from her late husband’s family. 2.6 S.C. married R.M. in 1999. She is also a tailor and has a daughter, N.R., born in November 2000. Her husband died in August 2000. He had built the house in which they lived, before their marriage. She and her husband had jointly purchased a car. When her husband died, both her brother-in-law and her mother-in-law ordered her to vacate the house because she had not contributed to the cost of its construction. They also decided to sell the car. Her brother-in-law applied to the Shinyanga Urban Primary Court Probate to obtain letters of administration. The opposition of S.C. notwithstanding, the Court appointed her brother-in-law as administrator. S.C. had to move out of her home and rented a house. She received no support from her late husband’s family. 2.7 On 16 September 2005, the authors initiated legal proceedings 6 before the High Court pursuant to article 30 (3) of the Constitution, 7 in which they requested that the customary inheritance provisions as codified in the Local Customary Law (Declaration) (No. 4) Order (rules 1-3, 5, 19-23, 25, 27-38, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 50 and 51) should be struck down because they contravened articles 13 (1) and 13 (5) of the Constitution 8 and the State party’s international obligations, including the Convention. The authors argued in particular that the provisions were discriminatory against widows, their daughters and other female relatives and __________________ 6 7 8 4/13 The authors were represented by the Women’s Legal Aid Centre. Article 30 (3) of the Constitution states that “any person claiming that any provision in this part of this chapter or in any law concerning his right or duty owed to him has been, is being or is likely to be violated by any person elsewhere in the United Republic, may institute proceedings for redress in the High Court”. Article 13 (1) of the Constitution provides that “all persons are equal before the law and are entitled, without any discrimination, to protection and equality before the law”. Article 13 (5) states that “for the purposes of this article the expression ‘discriminate’ means to satisfy the needs, rights or other requirements of different persons on the basis of their … sex … such that certain categories of people are regarded as weak or inferior and are subjected to restrictions or conditions whereas persons of other categories are treated differently or are accorded opportunities or advantage outside the specified conditions or the prescribed necessary qualifications”. The authors also refer to article 13 (2), which states that “no law enac ted by any authority in the United Republic shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in effect”, and to article 29 (2), according to which “every person in the United Republic has the right to equal protection under the laws”. 15-05820