antony ciprian vs firimina michael 2003 tzhc 83 1 april 2003

Tri TIES HIGH CCHJR'f OJ' TANZANIA AT ARUSHA j z ....' , s i . ________ _ ? o o g (Prom BABA T IjD i s t r i c t C ou rt Pat r im o n i a l _ g i A p p e j £jX>ASAK P rim a ry ...Cfoqgft M a trim o n ia l Case ANTONY CIPHIAN ... ....... APP1SLLANT Versus *► - J U ‘ D G' H B N T MSOFffjE, j « In the P^ifi^yy 'Q&re* <*fc iSnda&gik^ Hanang*. tha respondent peti- £qr-.£ivwjoc£t. -otistodjL —‘h^n •d.iviisdiwa. A f Qtot^inumial j^ s ££ j&% After a full trial a decree of divorce y/as granted; cus-tody gf given to her*, and. an JJaere was an- t' Oj^er for £he r«43p©ndeni? 4;o receive 3pent for. two r<*>ras of the said mat®im#nial house, ’and five bags of maize, The €ippellant^nfii^*<^6»- full^ appealed to the District Court at Babati. In * £en line typed judgment ~th£? said Court decided as follows?- • [ “JUDGMBgf BBFQR3 Ij. H,.*J5sJTUVA Respondent FIRMING MIQiAJIT^ successfully sued the App^llaat ^NTOKY CYPRIAN for a divorce d-^cr^e and the division Qf their matrimonial assets. The Appellant, being the aggrieved party lodged his appeal’*to this Oo^rij. •. Having gone through the evidence' on record this Court is of the view that there is cogent evidence to convince any cautions, reasonable and prudent tribunal to find that the marriage between the parties is irreparably broken down. The appeal is lodged without good cause and. it deserves to be dismissed with costs.' It’s so Ordered, Sgd. H. H. M. Tuwa 'DM 12/ 2/ 2001 ” In the petition of appeal to this Court there are several grounds• Of particular interest, however, will be ground no.5 in which the complaint is that the appellate District Court did not evaluate the evidence. In my view, the above ground has merit. It is clear from the above so called judgment that no analysis of the evidence was done by the District Court. Indeed, the so called judgment was not a judgment in the strict sense of the word for want of full comp­ liance with the provisions of Rule 16 of GN 312/64- i*e. The Civil Procedure (Appeals in Proceedings Originating in J^ourts^ Rulesi 1964. In fact, by the above so called judgment, the said Court did not consider the petition of appeal ^art^ 27/7/2002 which was filed before it, and in which there were complaints'regarding the decree of divorce, custody, maintenance and the matrimonial house. Since there was no judgment which could be affirmed or reve­ rsed by this Court, it will follow that there will be nothing by this Court to decide on the merits or otherwise of the appellant's complaints* Henceforth, the so called judgment is quashed and aside. Since, there is now a full time District Magistrate stationed at Hanang, the appellant’s appeal shall be opened afresh at that Court and determined on merit* That should be done without payment of any fresh fees^ If either party will still be disatisfied there will always be room for an appeal to this Court. J. H. MSOFFE JUDGE 1/4/2003 Delivered this 1st day of April, 2003 in the presence of both parties. Jc MSOFFE JUDGE 1A/2003 JKM/jn.