19950908 TZHC Dar es Salaam

nr 2fill I:IG!.I COURT OF '?l1}L'..:\IJIA _AT Dll.R ES SALILAM CIVIL .lil~EAL NO. 50 OP 1993 ASOllJl E • lllGONJ A ., •••••• ,. •••••••••• o • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .APPELLANT versus ______________ ELIElI~IA I. J:IGOMJA .... ,, •••• / ....................... p, • • • •·• • • RESPONDEHT ......._.__.... .,LUDGEMENT ~ G :....i, l . ! - The parties in -~:ds appeal, namely 1\.S8/i.iI E. i:GOHJA, who is the ~pp~llant, and one ~I~~IA I. ~1G~~JA, we~G f~r::1c:~ '.msban~ an~ r~:i.le, ..iav1nc~ entered a Chx1s·~1ai1 marriag~ sometime 111 l:;uO. DlJ.e 1,0 m1stnder-:- s·~m1dL1G and ·upon the a]Ypcllantt s petition ·clrni:c na;criage was legally dissolv~d on 19/4/1993 by the order of the louer cot.l:'to Among the r~.lie:fo prayed for, besides t:10 clissolu-t:i.on of the ma'.i:'riage, were c1.ivision of mat:riao~1ial asseJcs; the cus·~ody of all the children · mejntc112J1ce for all -~::·:c children and a:ny o"i;he:r. re lid• 'l111ere was evicknoe adduced by the_ peti·cionczr uhic11 was not at all cliE'p;T~ec.1 by the Re0po11t-:e1r~, that during tl.1eir- r,1a;,.'ri8g'e the couple uas lJle::;:-Jed uith four ohilc.b:en, namely Joel Ngonja~ Grc1ce IJgonja, Richard lI[;oaja, az1d Baral,.:a, I;:i[_;o11ja, then aged l2Yr::o, 10;7I's, 6yrs and 3Yrs old;· reopoo·cively. During such duration of tb.eix DD.1':dage the couple also r1m1a(;·od fo build a ]JoU2G; purchased one m/v Rei~lJo. m. 89712, make Toyota :J.1illt1.X Piclfup 1 nou ou-~ of Orcier, and developed a .f'~.rm tha-'ci had been Pt:1'o:,a::wc1_ by the Responcknt in 1977. In ~eterminin:;:; -~:1e reliefs song he by the appellz.nt, the lower COi.'.::.:-·~ declined to maJ.cc nny order in respect o:Z' -~he houDe on the gTOtmd th:..,:t t:1e same hac-;. ·~o rena.in a family house to sJ:.1.el·cer the childl'en of the DXC :d ~-e :i- no orders was made in re spec ·t'of -~ho D/v on the grotu1d that; the1·e-- uas no· ~vic:.euo·e 15iven by the appell'ru.1·t tl1:J,t d1.U'in~ t!1e subsistence of -~heir marriage tl1cv :1nd acquired a mo·tor vehicle Reg.No. TZ.89712, Dc.1'.::c Toyota Ilill~'l,,""' Piel:: 1;::;,~ and as regaxds the ot~::r~ody of children the lc>2.J.'11ed trial magif.:r~rate considered the· c:'l.;2;CG only of the fo;_i.r oaild.:ren and. ru.icl the~1 made the orc"..e:r tha·t the three older children had Jl.io remain in tl1c custody ofthc Rer::ponclent, while the :,·01.'.l1[:;e2·~ had to be under t:~e cns·~ody and sole maintenance of the appellant. I-~ is c1.gainst such decision of_ the ·~rial co1U't on the reliefs; other ·chan cliosolution of ·the na:rriage, sought by ·~i.lc rtl)pellant that ·t.his appeal 1-.a.o 1J~Cl"!. proferred to -~)1:i.s Court. . Arguing hex appeal, ·(;he appellant has mainto.ined, among. other things th~t she cannot accept that ·children of the n1arriage are entitled to inherit the proper·~ies of their pa;rents ~-rhile the pa;rents are still alive, which would appcrn;r -'co be the effect of ·i;he decision of the trial court in respect of the house jointly acqu.irt3cl uith the Respondent; that the m/v Reg.No.TZ 89712 Toyota Hillu.:x: had been pmchaaed by them in 1987; and -that though the farn 'was purchased by tho Respondent in 1977, bc;fore their marriage, it uas herself to who had played a major role i..'11. developing it by supervising ·l;he cleaxing of it, prov:i.di:rie fcl'tilizers and planting with pineapples~ oranges and banana pbntains all of which arc said to bo growing in the farmo Besides it is on such very farm that their matrimonial house was later built •. f.rguing the appo.:w. for the Respondent, Nro Kashumbugu, learned advocate, has contended, runong other things, in support of tho judgement of the lower court to the effect that -'Ghere was no evidence relating to the existence of m/v TZ 89712, Toyota Hillu:x: Pick-up or as to lrhethe:r she ever cont:ributed in i·lis acquisition, how such m/v was so acq1..Li.rcd, md whether the same· was ,._ , so D..Cquirod during their marriage 6 · As rega;rds the farm, it. has been his conto1rtion that as S"i).Cll fc1Xm was bought by tho Respondent in J.977, at the tii;1e w:1en they were not married, the appellri.nt cannot claim any interest in ito As regards the division of the matrimonial house he has argued th,:d; it was upon considering the interests of t'.:10 nine children of the Rcspondent 1 of whom fotu· were begotten with the appellant, that tho lower court declined Jco o:rdor the division of SU'.)h r,1at-:rimonial house •. However, tho len.rned counsel would be prepared to accept determination of the intorc-sts of tho parties in the nw,trimonial house 7 irrespective of whether or not the property is to be divicled among the intere_sJcecl 1xtrtics. In the light of the evidence adduced before the lower court, it is ~ considero_d opinion t:ia-t it was wrong for the le2.X11cd trial mc.sistrato : 0 to dep1~ivo the appellru.1-'c of her interests in the mn;i;rimonial house by ref'rai.11ing to dctorminc -'tihc some for the s:implc rec.son that there were ·children of the marriage who stood to bcnefi i.' As rightly contonded by . the. appellant, that was not a disposal of the property in the course of ·a.n administration of dcccased's estate. 'lhe Buiding principles in tl1e division of matrimonial property following a divorce arc those provided for 1.u1der s.114 of tho Law of Marriage .Act 1971; as also interpreted by tho court of .Appec.l in Bi-Hawa• s casce tfuat then docs the law sny? In terms of s.114 of tho Law of Maxriago .1\ot 1971, it is thoro providcd·as follows,- flJ.14~1) tho court shall have povrnr, w:1.1GU granting or mibsocrucm/i; to tho grant of a dccrca of separation or d.ivorco, to order the division between tho pa;rti€s of any assets acquired by thorn during tho r.ia:criage by their jon1t offorts ·or.to order the sale of cfIJY euch asset anrl the division bctweon the parties of the proceeds of sale. (2) In o~ercising tho power conferred by rrubs(1) the couxt d1ail have regard ( a) to .,.;he custom of tho oontrJUi.li .,¼>' to ,· .-i'hich the parties_ belongJ (b) iio -~he extent of the oon-i:i:ril)U.,liions made by each pa;rty in rnonGy, properizy' or work towards the a.cquiring of the assets; (6) to o.1-iy debts owing by oi·~hor p8Xty wb.ich were contracted for their jo:i.n:t benefit; (d) .,lio the needs of the infant childl'on, if ai.w-, of -the marriage, and subject to those considerations, shall enclfoo towards . equality of division. (3) For tho purposes of this sactionf references to assets acqu.i ted dllxing a marriage include assets owned before tho mc,....:rrin.gc by one party which haVo been substantially / improved during the marriage by the other pm-ty or by- their joint efforts.n In this casG th.ore has boen no dispute a::i to t21e extent of contribution by ei"tho:r party in the acquision of both the ;1ousc &"1d the m/v and in tho development of tho fn:rm that was purchased by the Respondent prior to their mcrringe. For -while the appellant claimed bofoxe. tho lower court to have acqu.irod both the houoc and m/v during their w:i:rriagc, ·thexe was no dispute raised by the Rospondcn-'c as fo the extent of cont:ribution by oi thor of them. Neither did tho Respondent_ dispute tho appellafrt' s oxtcnt of involvement in· their efforts to develop their farm. As such tlio:t'e ca'Yl bo no question as to tho ox-~ent of contribution by either of the parties. They have, in Jliho circumstances, to be takon to have had Gqt.tn.l contl'ibution in the acquisition of both the house, · tho motor vehicle nnd in the development of the fro:'m. I also take note of the fact tha.,li nr,1011g i;p,e needs of inf ant chilc1l'cn ,thnt is those c1.1ild:rcn who havG not rcacl1cd the ngc of rnn.jority o.s to be nblc to lend 3ll indopont1o.nt lifo, there is tho noocl· for oo.oquatc ru1(l mlitablo s...1.el tore The· c1uty to provide tho same lios upon the father, tmlcss unable to do so, ~or reasons of pr..ysical or uord;a,l ill-health. T.:.1a.t co.n be offoctecl by renting a house or puiltlil18' one for fac l)l1-I';_)ose. In considcrincr, such interests of infant cbildrcn:i it is tho po,rt3r who has custody of -bhG child:rcn wb.o has to be uwa;rdod 001i-iirol of tho matrimonin.l homo for tho boncfi t of tho children of the r.11:1ITin.gc, · Noverthcloss, t:.,c.:t should not bo construed as a. wcy to deprive the other party (1.cniccl of such possession., of DJ.ry interest in the, .7.touso. · It is therefore i1:1pc1·£1.tivo that despite n.warcling posscsdon o:c tho house to the party uI:o ~:c,s custody of the :inf,m:t children -'~10 s::.G.ro of tho other pn.r-iiy u:'.o ;,.no been deprived of sue]'. porrnosdon rn.wt be dotormined, so that il1· -c'.,.tc cvont of an o.ttcnpt by the pro.•ty who h.:1,0 posscasion of tho house to clizposo of it, or upon suc'.1 other pnxty' s doa:U,-y, the intorost of the rx:1•·cy 1-tl10 has been deprived of possosdon of such house? is du.J.y rccot3'1rized o.nd protected. It is in the li.:;h-t oZ ::ru.ch considerations :.:ncl in terms of tho provi.Gions of s.114 of tho Ln.w of' marri2gc Ac·~ 1971, that this Court orclors as followa t:.1i1t is to sey: (a) tl.1;:-;~ the nppellant is entitlccl -to two fifths (2/5) of the value of both the house and tho fn.rm a.cqui.rod nnd devcloped, respectively, by t;1c parties durillB' their rnnrrfr,ce, (b) ' that the parties axe onti tlcd. to roi oq:ual sht1Xc of the. proceeds of s£1.lc upon the sale of the n/v TZ 89712 ToyotGt Ilillux Pick-up. (c) thn-t ·t.:10 matrimonial house and fr,xm ~hall remain in tl1c Possession of -'.;ho 1xixty who has cnrr~ocly of infant child.ran of tho marringo tmtil they rcnch Tu:a 2-{SG of aa.jori ty ancl .'J.n.Vc started fonding n;n indcporn.lGnt life, after u;uch Gi thcr party shnll be anti tled D.l'ld 1'.a;vo liberty to c1cmanc1. dividon o:f such matriDoitlo..l house and f arrn, by sclc of the same, ( d) Upon ec1,0h pfl.I'ty having custody of oor.10 of the :L.'lfo.nt children of tho marric1.c;-c, then both tho hou.so anc.l i'axm slmll be sub jcct to so.le and dividcct on equal bnsis, 1.11 order -'.;o 011ablo child:rcni: Nou comi!'JB' to , ias1.~o or,., ;Jainvcnanco, t120 · .,_ · ·'· 1s lu · unde.1.·~~tood ~ tlrt... n tl10 rtospond cm·t is . s ,GJ... l__l 1ro::t.:i..1.1[; . . ·1·r1· tl1 tl1c 1·u"• ·iu' ~ r.:!'v'·.1.· ·i1 of T;'Au_r,,ati· on ,.,,1rl 0 v .c,u. - = cultur:c and the appclin,;,1·c io uo:rld.118' 1rit:.1 TAC0S0DE on contract baoisc The lau on maintcnJ.nco o:::· c:uld.:ron an_c1 spouGe:J is V'cxy clcarc As rcco.xc.ls mointcnancc of cllilclren, that is s~)olt ou:~ under & 129 of the La~r of IIc:i;r~ia..sc Act 1971c It is there piovic1cd as follom::z ''129-(1) ::m.ve ul10xc an c:i6Tee::Jc::1'~ or order / of coLU't o·cJ.10ruisc provide::, it ::::w.11 be tho dtr~~r of a man to main-~ttln his infant ohilclxcn, ,rl!o·c;lGr -they arc in llis custody or the cunto_cV of mw otho:c pa:;:soh, ei thcr by pl'oviclinc tlle,,1 ui th such ;J.Cco;·:u-.iocbtion, · olothinr;, looc1 n.;.1d education aa l:1iJY' he reasonr,1)1c l1avi11g :r:cga:r·d to his neans ,:i;nd sta.tio21 in lifo o:i: by pnyin[; tllc cost thereofi:: (2) SE;)jcc~ to tho provir-::ionc of Subsc (I) , it .shall lJ c tho cluty of a uor:icm to mai1Yiinin 01' contribute to the ;-,wintonanco of hc:r im:ant children ;i.f tllci:r l'athox is dc8.d., or :1io ulrnrcQ,bouts a:ro Lw12moun o:r if and so fc.:.: a::i :1.c is unalllc to r-1aintain 'i theme 11 I-t iG clcnr- from tho lo:.:cGoi11,_; p:rovi,.::d.on tI.10:l; uhilc tho 'ln;ir imposes a duty upon :fa·;;he:r of a child to mai;ri;m.n such child, such duty mD.Y bo shifted by· an onle.:r o:! a coUl't whcrtj. ciI'cuL1sta11ccs so dor.iancu:: Thn;t is 11hc:i;t l1appenod in the inr:d;c:ur~ case in .respect of the youn5cst child tha-t uas placed under t~lG cuc:-~ody of the n,ppcllw.ri:ic It appears thc1t tho loucr cou:r:t did so, and i·~ hc1d the mnndc1;i;a under our law to c1o so, upon bcin3 r,1adc aware t:1n;i; V10 n,ppcllant llull b.ox mm independent sou:rce of inconc, as she was t;.J.c:1 said to be uo:r:d.nc uith TAC0S0DE. That beine the position the o:rd.er o:;;' tho lower cou:rt ar.; ·i;o tho maintenance by tho a.ppcll.:i;nt of tho in:Z-n;nt cl1ilc1 tmdcr the cucr~od,/ o:c the appellant cnimot ba intcr:fcI-rcd withe Coi:1inc;· to the irn:m.e o~: t:::ie custody o:::· ·;;;.:tc. children of' tho rnc1.r:r-icl{;·c 2 the fem child.ran wc:rc -~:.,e:1 nccc1 between ~2y:r,o aml .3Yr& It upon considcri1-ie- • thc ~cs o:Z the childJ:en onlz... -~11c1t tho lo1rcr cou:rt decided to place only the yorn1e;·ect child. Li..i1c.le_j_" t;~.c cu.ztod,y of J.;i1c n.j_:,pclln,nt;: Tho children ucro no·b c,iYen any oppo:r-~rmi tir to chooso a.a 7Jc·~1roen their di vocrci11[; pa;r(1ii-~s as Hi th uhon "iihcy uodd feel r.1orc corc,fortnlJlc to li vc~ Yd; in terms ol subsc (2) o:~ & 1~ of tho L:Jr-r o? iI2'X1:in..go Act 1971, it is provided as follous.: 1'125 - (2) _I:a c1ecidini3' in uhocc- cu::,fody on infant Gl.10Ltl.d be placed the pnxar.1ou.nt consiclo:r-r.~tion shall lJo tlw 1Tcli'ax-o of tho infant n.nd ::;t1.1Jjoct to this, ·chc col.l.I't shn.11 have r cr.,1..1.:1:cl -: (n,) to tJ.10 uishos of the pn:ronts of tho inlru.1 t; and (b) to t.'..10 1tlshcs of the ini'ai.--it, uhc:rc he or she is of n.n aee , to e::p1°css an inclepcudo1r~ opinion; ( c) to -~J.10 customs of" tho coamuni ty to uhich tho pro:tios bclon:3"c (3) There shall lJc a robuttablc p:r:eGLUliption that it is for tl1c c;oocl of an infant 1Jolou tllo ago of. seven years to be uith his or her: ;:10-Lllor lJ\rb in deciding uhet:ier the prcsuraption appJ.ico to the :facts of 'D%JY' pal'"~icula:r case, the coi-w:t olmll have regard to t}10 miclorsi:rabili ty of ·disturbinC; the (4) Uhero the:re axe t1m or more child:ren of a raar:riclgo, the coLT~ oJ.1..1,ll not be lJoLmd to place lJo-~1 or all in the custody of the snne person but shall consider -~110 uclfare of ec1C:1 i1115.cpondont1yc n It is eVident :fr.0;;1 the l'o1'egoing p:roViDiomi that the three chilJxcn (. of the r,1arria3e then o.,..::;ed 12,y'l's, lOyr:s nnd Gy-.rn, ou...jl1t to have boon hoc.rd before lJeinC; placed under tho custody of ·:;110 llospondent, as with uhom betueon -~ho di vorcinrs par on ts -~hoy woulcl liavo li::ccl mo □ t to li Vee It is also cvio.ent ·!;hat tho loue:r 001..~ t erred. in la.r, fo place the 6-,ye:xr ·olcl child under -~he custoc\y' o:~ -~_l10 Respondent, wi·~l10ut there beirl[;' an,y· reaSlllnalJlo grounds to :-. o·but tho presumption ·0).1.n;i; a child of that nc·o 0 ought -~o 1Jo placed under tl1e cuotod,y of tho r,1otherc Of course the situa:~ion no1-r lias changed.; ln1n:t, :10Hevor, remains to ~Jc_ ro 6-u.ln.:rized, is tho opportmliJy to be given -~o tho other throe c;uJ.dren of tho mar:riagc be- eotten lJy the appellant ancl the Rosponclmrli 7 -~o choose as between the - 7 .- tlro parents; with v,J.10E1 ·tJ.iGy 1rotu.d most prc~:'cr to liVcc In. the circur,wtc:u1ces, I sat a:Jidc the lone:r com·t I G o:r:clG:r fo:r the custoey of the th:ree. oldc:r cbildr:cn all of whor.1 hacl l)CGl1 placed upon tl:c . Respondent c1.11tl order -~h.u/.; ::iuch childxcn be_ :rccjyd.rcd to appcn.r 1)cfo:re the loner cou.rt. an.cl allouccl to c:;:crciso such cJ.1oico, in accordance with the lnllc .Accordingly, I allou tllic; appeal in 1x1;rt, n.i.ld make no o:rder JUDGE Delivered in chw:1lJers at Dar cs Salaan tll.is 8th .9-cy of Scptcml)er 1995, in the p:rescnco of lJoth puxticsc ,. _:. -..././11/y/(~- j,,rrr f, TT(/j,, T) .i.,. .7'" .1.•'J.1• .u ... JTIOG& 0/9/1995c ii