19830607 TZHC Mwanza

j.UDpuOcIsD1 Dtfl. gq tLtO t9 P)U1IE'OtZOO. -TJJS &q •(sDu- Uetvom Dtfl. jo at. Si iI4O3 ?qiM) ' 4OD Tmw )UO. SM UpuJFip fl- -tUP °1d eTleqOGZ TuDpuods.a &qT st.t jjrqutid c't tPr PTJT Pus X4STDLI p(9tJO &t xiq pxooi o. qtm uq sq Btl -i 41 US BSti iti ozq q pioOi Dtfl. I.Pxfl. ppio I uosst zoLif •siztd jo swu btfl. MOt[S .Ou PTP 99/091 'D'O JO UUpr 9/?1 ao'3 JO ItflO &q. PUD 4 99/091 'D'O 30 DUO 'S.uaui2pnC .zrtoo 0M!I. peonpozd 981J .uflDdcID D1J. sjuou-,n.9aP, Sj jo .xodthts u •zrtoo 9TtT o. zETflXnJ p1odcT DH JO tiO3 OtzSta ar.fl. O. Ptdde lrnisDoot1m TueTlDddegtlL •wv zoj Ixotua2pnr pus s6u2V UDUOM Bqq. jo pueqs -ntt Tn,p-t Dt. l.uDpuodsE)a Btfl. tfl pDni pus sptS Toq ,o DOuDpttB atIT pzBt I.xnOO 91 •tz9xptt10 pB.ndSDp DDXIfl. Dtfl. IDt t.tM ¶.OJ pus UU?OM DqT pttDtUt TuE?T -[ Dddp Ztfl. PUS pUSq9nT. StT .OT1tIj OflXB) IaTqloaq ay.9uno.9 S.USTTBcIdS Bqq. O. pstzzsw T1ztITJ SSM Bt pBOlOsvrp SSM UtSS pUS aqo3fTeSN BUO O. pDtz ?1EEX SSM DirS 0 02 UOT Tuapuodsga q 0IOtp SSM SDU2V USUOM Dtfl. !.Stfl. 2UTn.91e WtO Btfl. pBStSBI .USIIBdcIS •wtq OT pa2uoBq 0S[S UIP1TtW pDXidSBp &. DJTM UUOcISz Btfl. 11t.S SSM UeU2OM axlq. osneoio •uzptqo Dtfl. pus !.USI1DddS Dt. TITTM a&Tl O. ¶1rUM pus pueqsnT4 t&t( p4z6sp UDXp1t1O pD.nd8D JO Itfl.OW OlqT 1 SbuJ SSM jurvpuodsia aTI1. -'- P-- W '-' '.3 (' 1 uDIpItt.!O DgaqT JO pO.SrtO tOJ UttJ PSnS Tugpuodsga 9TJ '.zrio3 czuizj eqemtrc.9M ut ¶.uspuaJBp 9t. SSM usII9ddS aTflJ :f 'J[ffl Navlodnr : : : : : : : : : : : : : :ojIjZ Sn SI B & .: : : : : : : oia (L6i 30 o ' Obi O s sO 1PT3 I xn O D ISWtzd S SM SJ,It@ o!z.sTcr 'ba £ ozszsrJ as ; BzoJa/ , i61 jo'ON id ITATO Ut BU1tIS .s DWTIsj, o &no3 01a" 9 D74 JO U0TSTOBpU 141.uox) 6!6t jo t e og riv, to 'UAIO (Dc!) : H -\ ti) r' ieIfl03 H0IH JHI NI tpr - 2 Zacharia Paulo. He claimed a refund of 28 .iead of cattle, bridewealth he paid for the woman .gncs. The second judgement In C.C. 132/68r again the respondent Zacharia Paulo was the plaintiff. Th'3 woman celled .'1gorj Ariwita was te defendant. Igori Mwita is the sane wcnan as lignes. In that case she was referred to as wife of Nyaikob The respondent sued her for custody of a child they got during ihejr marriage, From the foregoing explanation, the appellant's argivnents are correct. It follows that in G.C. 160/6 the respoent su'c1 for refund of 28 head of brideweaih cattle (the cot granted him 15).. This must be taken for granted that he had diorccd the woman lig21e (or gori). lifter that she was married by one Nyaikobe. This is indicated by C.C. 132/68 when she was referred to as the wift of Nyaikobe. It was the ap:ellant's contention that in 1971 the woman lignee left Nyaikobe, and was married by his (appellant) young brother Keranyo. The husband died and the appellant inher.ted her and got the desuted children with her. The respondent had no right to (,laim the desputed children. In perusing the records I find that nithor the trial court ncr the fi'et appellate court made any mention about the two jdgments. The appellant argued that they refustd to ecept them. Inrejecting the appeflant's claim the aslessors who sat w.th the magistrate had this to say: '..., Kufuatana na desturi ya Kiiurya mp nahesabika ameolewa kwanza kuna ng'omb ambayo siku ya harusi huchinjwa nay baitwa 'mbotorora', basi hiyo ng'obe z'diyo huthibitisha ndoa kwa kimila, na tiu ya talaka pia iwapo mtu ameoh;dcua mke aliye kwisha olewa na mtu mwinEine huhesabika kama ameachika hapo mulrzg wa pili anpoi- rudishja mume wa kwanzti mahari yake yoe, yaani 'ameborora' ....,.." The court ruled that the respondent had not yet been refunded his bridewealth so his marriage still subsisted with the woman lignes :gori and the cthsputed children were given to him. This ruling cannot be supported in as much as it is repugnant to the judgeaient of the court inC.C. 160/66 which ordered 4gnes's father to refund respoxdent's bridewea1tk. It is presumed that t4$"nbotorora 1 affa±r was raised and finally decided. Liorcovor by 196 the woman lignes .•.. S -3- was married to a man called Nyai-kobs.' It was from this second husband Nyaikobe that sh oam to the appellant's family. It is inconceivable thatthe respondent should have filed this suit in 1978, a period of 12 years after the judgo;nnt in c.c. 160/,66. I allow the appeal.l I set aside thc, decisions of both lower courts and substitute an order dismissing the respondent's clai;n. The respondent to pay the costs. USO&v1 F. 71 J83 JUDGE