19851212 TZHC Mbeya

F L. 1 L' T'. 1ll: CO[Jf2 OP ¶i.ZA2IA ki' BYA (Po) CIVIL P?AL iio. 61 OF 1981 (Fi0i'L i DcIIo c irzicr couP oi }CYJ4 AT IN CIVIL APPAL V0. 77 OF 1980) '1AiGAjTYIK.. i17'KLL1 : : : : : :.APP1LLii1 versuz DAVID?J(AjTA :::•.:::.:;: :•.::fliZPOND]UT The appollonU, T. 1.1 !I(L, euec; his fathcxinlaw, DAVID N TLLA ic i. te resi,oadcnt i;. is appeal for ti'e return of 5 h/cattle pl :s.IOD/., 'ei; doir y ho appellant to bhc rcspondoit for his mrria to th rcseat 'a ciauhter - EJLISA KAB.ANA. He rna,ri'ied .Jnclisrt in 1952 - unil ciisolution of the marriage, at th instonce f th(11 lar* in 1980, i o 1k la Primary Court. From the roonrcl t1 couple ad had 7 issUes of the rnarriae - 4 of whom are still alive. It tVao olisa's ce t she ctitinoc cr divorce on He roun:13 that ho apoollL 1 chased ir fr - rn their matrimonial home fr no gooi- ruasojis, 1il ie a ellab i 01 2 3corl as iiavi;; admitted iT chasi.n' her out tho rnaLrimcnial honx - allo;th, infidclit on her part, 1-1 also di1 nt :iek resIst t)ott ion. Thercaftcr the ipollaat brou..t sa :ioti', tinsthe r.s 'iuiont, for recovery of ri jowe alt i as tbcvo. The court f 1st li 'JiCO orciored tI rciun. i 3 h/cattle plus the I0 0 / ciiy. It also condemner th respondent to costs of the uit. The procecdin:L uaoar t a12.ost Vt ho court aCreed rith the pe1las t 1 ' t blarno for o :okdot.-n of toir rnarriae when the reind . rsiii waa o rdor ~ _, . The r ioncnt appca.lod to the ; District court f ,Thc )iotricL cw4 lhud to anc11.in L; Onu to blaso fur LHu hroalcLlown o c -urrir-e 1 It -o - s ai iuic.ith-.t the couple had 'ihabjted lr:i: .isu h ihd 'ic eao:..'ol .Jnufier of issues of te . . . . -.2 Marriagp that. i would be highly improper to order any refund of dowry under thc situatioli, It aOcordiAgly act aside the order 'b±'the Primaxr Court and instead made an order of no refund of &, jj at aU a BencM the appeal to this court by Tanganyika Mwakihb • I have carefully porw3od the iaedinga of the lowoib courts. And having heard the parties on appeal I ai quito satisfiod the decision of the District court was the more proforrable if not the correct one. The appellant was ±hQ one to. blame for the broakdon of their marriage. The appellant had not proved infidelity on the part of his.wife when he chased her out of their matrimonial home. Mid when summonod to the Conoilliàtory Board ho, according to the certifioe filed7 refused to attend. The situation is compounded further by the fact 'that the couple had lived toethor as husband and wife for 28 years before dissolution of the marriages In addition their marriage was blessed with 7 issues of whom 4 ar,o still alive. There can be no quustion of ordorin1 any refund of dowry u'ic1er the circu.nstances. Accordingly the appecl is dismiss1. 'rith costs to this court and the courts below. At 1Theya this 12th thy of :acerbur 19 8 5- M0J. j'T AKI '.~_. TE JUDGE I2jI2/