19740115 TZHC Mwanza
IN TI'L 11IG1I COUT OF TLNZfihIJ 1T M1.[iNZI. (nc) CIVIL LPPEL NO. 53 OF 1971 (0riinal Tarim(,, Primary Court Civil Case No. 122 of 1970) (From the decision of thc District Court of North Mara at Tarimo in Civil Ippeai No. 199 of 1970) Before: S. E. Kaji Psqc ç District MaGistrate, •• 1 .•%• ... -IVloscnyeMaisa...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19740115 TZHC Mwanza
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 15 January 1974
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
No structured case brief is available yet for this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN TI'L 11IG1I COUT OF TLNZfihIJ 1T M1.[iNZI. (nc) CIVIL LPPEL NO. 53 OF 1971 (0riinal Tarim(,, Primary Court Civil Case No. 122 of 1970) (From the decision of thc District Court of North Mara at Tarimo in Civil Ippeai No. 199 of 1970) Before: S. E. Kaji Psqc ç District MaGistrate, •• 1 .•%• ... -IVloscnyeMaisa ............,s... Appellant (OriGinal Defendant) versus hoGana Chacha.....,...... 1 ....., Pospondent (Original Plaintiff) JU B G 111 fl N T MFLLILP, J. -- This is a second appeni by the appellant, M0SENE Mi\ISi who was successfully sued by his former son—in—law the respondent in the Primary Court sitting at. Tarime for the return. or refund. of 30 cattle paid to him as bride p±'ica for his daughter iabi. It appears that Rabi did. iot like ior husband the respondent riChi from the start of the ir mrriagc i1 1964, for shortly thereafter she started running away frorn th& matrimonial homc. She kept on running away from the respondent to live with a varicty of men until 1970 when she completely disappeared and has not been heard of since. The respondent then ±'ilad a divorce suit which was hoard in the absence of his wife. He was successful and •tnc maeriag'o was diseoivcu - hence those proceedings fcr the refund of bride price. Both the courts below fbund that the appellant's daughter was solely responsible for the bro&.cciown of the marriage by har promiscuity and irresponsible behaviour of running' away with several man over a period o± time, and that therefore in 'the circumstances 'the rasponcjari't was entitled to the full refund of what ho paid for her. The evidence on the record clearly supports this. view. In the circumstances there can be no justification icr anyone to interfere -yith these findinjs. The appeal is dismissed. As the respondent did' not appear , there will be no order as to costs. Mi'JJhNZi L. MPLLILP 15TH JLNULI'?Y, 1974 0 JTEC±. ..