19900904 TZHC Dar es Salaam

UI TJ..'.E RIGTI COTJTI.T· OF T.ll.HI:;ANIA AT . Diul E3 S ~ . ( PC )crv.tt. APPEAL NO. 80 OF 19QQ .li.TJ'Iu11'uTI HSAlJGEin.,. •• ~,.. • •, • .• •. • • • •• , .• APPELLANT versus J'(J:OGilE1T'£_ In this 0-1.sc ci"Tct1Goncnts wore ni>.do for tJ.10 cL..uchto:i; of the n.ppollnnt, · · Mwn.ncishc Oncrft.~ to nnxry tho son of the rcspo11c'!.ont, 1'410s0 11:,no ha,s not ). . boon disolosocl ~:10 procoodinGs Li. iho two courts below, I.t fulfilnont of tho ~r~Gncnts .. t:10 boy's fc;:1izy pdcl to the Girl is fr,;:.1ily shs.. 500/7 bci.nc; t1bqxuntt, or inJi,;roc1.ucti.on uonoy ~..s I ui1dorsJ.;['..11cl i Ji;,. Thon tho nxrr.mcooonts f nilod to no:toc.1isc. 'E.10 Gii'l l\'.fwc:-ncishn. Onnri sdcl a10 hcd wn.i tad fo:r too long ruid tho l)oy's f'oJ.ti.JJ;' wr·.s not f'or-'i;hconil1c, bccr:.t1.Sc, nppc1Tont]y, thoy hnd bean looldl'Jc for clo,v.c"'.f • At one ::::tr.cc l'.fi·r.:1ncish2. Or.1r'.!'i :foll in lava with mbthor nnn. Tl..10 cppcll,:nt reported this to tl:o :re spondont, Disouosions wcro holcl encl ln,tcr the eit-1 :.'..polocisod to tho rosponclont. Tho l4t;';J.;01: docidccl to· forcivo .hc=- ~d it wc.s rercocl thr.t aho shoultl now s.~1ift to rosponclontis houso where she should bo stcyi11o paneling tho oolobro..tio11 of tho nL'.lTiaao~ While thoro, ho"1ovcr, • she stro:rtod to tti.s1)0..ho..v0 e,eoin nnd finally she doclc.rod tha.t she wn.s not rmy- noro intorostod in hor boy: sho Wc?..S r.1ar:ryinc another r:1.'l1., the ono aha hNl p:ro- Viou.sly fr'..11011 :i.11 love witho Sb.a loft rospondont's hono, Tho rospondont than filed this suit o0 ro.nst tho n.ppoll0l1t in Ji;he ~inozy Court 1:.t Tcookc, DclX ca SC:J.0,c.1n, clci::.ti.."1.G' thc.t sinco tho pcyncnt of t~10 "b~uo." n.nd up to whon tho onrricco pl<-'11s broko clo,m, ho hc.".Ll 1:·oon nci.ntcin:i.na tl10 c,"irl rdwanro.shn Or:iari with r.1onoy and was civinc; hor cifts in oontonpl:i.tion of nc.rriago, IIo an.id _., nll those cnno to c, -'i;otal v&u0 of shs.11,000/..... Tio clninocl -'li:.:is ~:iount :f:r.cn the n,ppcllnnt·, Mw2.110.isha. Onf'.l'.'i r'.t1nHtod to roccivinc; r.1011ay o.nd cifJi;s <'D.0UJ.1ting toJ~.3,.250/-. · Tho o.ppollmt hir.1So1£,whilo o..c.1r.1ittilte roccivine -t;J:o 111.>rruc..11 r.1oncy,i •. 6. shs 4 500/-, · ho donicc1 t'l~' knowlcc~c c..l)out o·thor nonics or ei:Ns eivon -'co his cL'Ulghtar.- Tho respondent coun:'.;oi'cd those donicls of tl10 o.ppcllc".l1t 1Jj~ ~G'l1il1g tl:,.a.t tho nonios and gifts plus r.1r.-.intono.noc cronorcl.ly h~1 been extended to lh·mnn.isho. with tho full lmowlct'\co of t~o 11ppcll0ltt. !Io contended tl:oxcrorc tlmt tho o.ppclle.nt :j ooulcf~ lie,bili-'cy ill this cc.so a :~J -~ 2/.... ,_., - 2 - Tho P.r-ir1~y Cou.:t"t c..ocopto~1 the rcsponclont 1 s ooafo1t-bions nnd decided ·tho oc,so in his frwour, ThG o.ppollr-nt W:.'.,S 1:'.Ccricvod Md ho '-1 D'is ..1--· _, d .1..110 ·1110 l'..ppoc.i.o w.·J.c t· Cour t of' ... Tonoko..,.. The Dis-'w:iot Court (Ch.ci'iko DM) upho,lcl tho c.1ooision: of tho P.dt.12.J;y Court r.ncl c1.isr::isscc1 tho a.ppooJ.~ · Undnuntod, ho ( tho e,ppollont) hr,s 110w o..ppoalod Jlio tltl.s cou;rt, To boa:in with. tho. decision of tho District Ccn.u...-t, ·ii:io District ]4r,sistrc.to c1.oos 11ot nppcn:t'" to hr-:vo cor.1p1'chonclod the 00So fully: he says ct tho boainl1UJG of his .juc."1c1:1ont· t1:o..t 11 Jlihc c'..ppcllo.nt wr-..s sued :ln Tcncko ~-,;ry 00'1.ll"t "i;hc respondent in :thc..t CoUJ.""'ii cla.l.Docl shs.11,000/.:. r1.s c1DI.19C,;os f,cxt' broggh o,i. Ol}G~iooont 0'011trn.ot" w Then further c.1.01~1 in tho .judgnont ho refers to s.71 of tho Lo.w of lvl.""Zri2.Go Act 1971. · This section rel6.tcs t~ return of ffifts given in oontcnplntion of-naxri::ieo.. Clon:ttly tho District MC{;istre,tc WC'..s ilt 001-ifttsion ·M rccrc;rcls the nn:tm:'c of tho suit. Whil,.a ·donogcs for broach of proniso· of onrrioeo· era cloina.blo unclcr s.69 of tho La.w of M.."'.t'i'ielc3'o Act, ro"au.rn of gifts is cloir.1&>10, r.s inc1ioo/tiod, under s.71. The two oc.ttcrs r-.rc therefore not to be 0011.fuscd or nL"tad up. This 02.sc wM° tor tho return of e;ifts ui1dor s,71 c..na. not for d~~cs for 1Jrcnch of pronisc to . n~• Then Julio DisJi;riot !-b(;istrc'..Jlio seys tho Do.l'rir-,ec wc..s to bo between a,ppolicnt• s dootJhtor 2.nd Jliho re sporl.clont hinsclf'; Ji;his w;;,,s clcc:J."'l;y" o..i..""Toncons ru.so.,· The· : prococd.ines :i.11 -'GJ.10 P.rino:cy Court show tha.t ,:·":~. uo..s tho respondent's sori who was to naxry· c.ppo ll 011t i s cL.'1).1Ghtors the P'.l'iDUy O~"lh in its·. :-ol~•ti&• •~~, "J#lsttc . Rl?IR pa· 94:~ Be otpto · W~- baa.iv~,. lakini Dc'.'.pc'.tc.no. jlcy o ~.oovunjikti." • Tho plans thcrofora wore for or>.rritV;o, ·c,s indicated cibovc, 1Jctwcon Mwannisha. . . Ooari ancl rospo.1cla11t •s son, end ·not between the e;irl 011cl the rcsponclont o.·ll tho District M.:l;'is-'i;rn.to r.ssunod. Thon tho c.1.ooision of tho P.rino.:cy Court., whioh, o..s :i.11clicc.,tcc1, wa.s upholcl by tho District Court. IIow tho fiJ'Ul'O bf shs.11,000/-:- w-2..s arrived at was not ostr1.blishoc1. Phoro wr>..s no concr.cto or· conclusivo oviclonoo 011 this ru:iqunt. As 1 notod tho G"irl Hwn.11~hn. Onc'.'..Ti <'ilmi ttod· to roooiviite nonoy and thincrs of the viluo of onzy nbout 3,250/-. Hoth:i.n(;· provoc1 the C!lOtUlt of shs.1i,·ooo/"." which tho a.ppollcllt 012,:i.ood c,pbrt fron tho bu.l'o n.sscrtions o:r ·tho ~pollrint a.ml his wifo (PW2 ). · The cnou11t olcinocl by rosponclont ;thoroforo Wc',13 not proved by erodible or sl'.:tistnotoi"Y a~-./ic.1onoo. Of :noro iaport.11100 in qy Vi.ow, is tho question whot:.1or tho o,ppollant wri.s tho· propc:r: J?ct'~Oll JGO be suotl in this C.o..sc • · As ii1c'1.iO['.focl ,cl.l tho allo~ocl ci£ts· woro roccivoct' 1,y tho Girl Mt•rnnci.sh0. The r-.ppollmt sci.cl he.hod not boon involved 3/••• ,, ... 3 ~ the trCl1.sn.ctions ih -which the c;i:fts wore e:x:chm_ted, Then the alleged broc.ch of the agroenent to mar:izy- wr.,s cJ..so r:iru:le by the girl herself, Thora was no evidence of r:!-rry involvement . of tho appellant ' in this eithar. It cnnnot ba fcir at all then th2.t lie should be made to berx the_ oonsequenoe13 of the faults of his (1...'"'llghter. Eltcept for the shs.500/- "be:rua" oonoy which ho received therefore, the a,ppellmt shoulc1 not have l)een suoc1 for tho Gifts and.a to the girl. The _Girl herself sheuld have been sued for theso, I hold therefore that tho n.ppellont was w.ro11G~ sued for_ tho return of gifts given in oontempla:liio11. of mar:cic:ige in this on,se, encl for these roa.sons I al~ow the appec-,1, I qua.sh tho decisions of tl:e two courts belo-w- md set aside oll the orders nnde by them, If tho respondent wishes to. sue the . o,ppoll021-'c ho should sue h:i.r.i for the roturn of -'i;he ttborua" ( the sb.s.500/-) on4". lihn.teyer wc?.s givGn to Mw~nishc. Omn:ri .shoulcl 1)e claimed from Mwrutaisha herself, The Appclldnts allowed, ·v:-ith costs in this oou.rl nnc1 in the two courts 1Jelow. AppenJ. allowed. /tltv{»<~ !J.~~iJcrJiNDo JUDGE DAR ES SJJ.J:J,11· 4th Sep1;8Llb8l", 1990 'Appellcnt ~ 1)l'esent in person Respondent 1xceBent m person ~!4'1i&~ 1 /l~A.mNDO JU.OGE 4/9/1990