19790308 TZHC Tabora
fl J1o..* fr IN THE HIGI4 COURT OF TANZANIA AT TABORA. • () MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPEAL NO.4 oP.i9e fi Ftm the deaion of the Dtrict Court of Kasutti at in cjvjj Cause No.3 of 1918) •r d • HKODYA NGALAMA ;....................,............... orIit versus USTINI )4FUMyh ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . ....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19790308 TZHC Tabora
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 8 March 1979
- 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
fl J1o..* fr IN THE HIGI4 COURT OF TANZANIA AT TABORA. • () MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPEAL NO.4 oP.i9e fi Ftm the deaion of the Dtrict Court of Kasutti at in cjvjj Cause No.3 of 1918) •r d • HKODYA NGALAMA ;....................,............... orIit versus USTINI )4FUMyh ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . e • RESPONDENT - (OiLqinat ettieer) - .• JuDGMENT MAPIGANO J: this is a divorce case. The parties eontrated a chtlstian Marriage in 1449 and there is one issie to it. Since 011 they have been liVing separately and apart. In 1917, the wife, the eespendent herein, Yustini # petitioned the district eout of Kasuu fok dissolution of the marriage, on the grounds that the husband had, dur1ng - cohabitation sub3ected her to torture and then bai*)ted her from the matrimonial home. The husband disputed that he tormented her and that he had driven her fro* the home. The learned magistrate believed the version of the wife4 feund the huband guilty of cruelty and de5ertin and in conse.nce granted the decree asked for. The husband has brought this appeaij challenging that decision and eont"Aing that the tearned magistrate was wrong in finding him so guilty. I regret to lay that I tannot sustain that submission. It was a question of fact, wh±h etre1y depended on the view of the trial court-aS to the etedibility of the witnesseS. I think that the court waS, on the evid.nee, entt1ed to make the ftnii.ng. He was also right in grantin4 a decree of divorce ? There was i'o question that the marriage had beew b'oken dOnw beyond retrieve. For as was disctsed before this court# the respondent has been cohabiting with another man, resutting in the birth of a child. • - The L - 2 court diected,a the end 6f is th t. 600e114n was ehtltl2d to a sum of 8hs20/ at efufld of Hi dow, This is also a subject of disUth th thi s hOVO no ho8 i t a t len to say that the aei1ait8 ttmp ~ Wllflt thAt 446t Wi4O b a d hEir. dome táe. The qtjebh Of dWty. es hot sen t Q have beeh a tiv ,sUe b0f0r,e th e4t, The* ko It th Was on'y one J.t t MtP thd res p b fid en- who mehtl oned thirtg out e sowry ow bi 1$ PaOA ihjp I wI1 thetefprQ 7 alloW the aeal i 00 a$ t t'c to the dowry ahcj 8ct ade the O 1 tP•ø 1 in he ent. r- fiom "c"nah l3idtod 'sutdkat# thio *pPii