19800226 TZHC Mwanza
There was no evidence that the respondent prevented the appellant's wife from rejoining him; the dispute was matrimonial and did not involve the respondent's wrongful conduct.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19800226 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: Elias Mzale; Respondent: Shabani Mulisa
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 26 February 1980
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Disputes, Return of Wife, Dowry Refund
- 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.
Parties
Elias Mzale
Appellant
Shabani Mulisa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is legally obliged to return the appellant's wife or refund the dowry
- 2 Whether the respondent prevented the appellant's wife from rejoining him
Ratio Decidendi
There was no evidence that the respondent prevented the appellant's wife from rejoining him; the dispute was matrimonial and did not involve the respondent's wrongful conduct.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1* 4 , IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (In the District Registry) AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION (pc) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 1979 (From the decision of the District Court of Bu.koba District at Bukoba in Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1978 — Before I. IC-. r/iahumu, Esq., District Magistrate and ICatoro Primary Court Original Civil Case No. 19 of 1978) ELIAS MZALE ......... . . •. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. APPELLANT Versus SHABANI MULISA. . . . . . o . • . 0.... •.. •. •. • •....... •:.,. 5*s•S ..RESPONDENT J U D. .G .M ENT N.UNYERA J 3.: The appellant sU.ed his father—in--law, the respondent,before Katoro Primary Court of Bukoba District. He was asking the court to compel the respondent to return his (appellant) wife, Amina. The trial court ruled that the respondent eithär he returns the appellant's dowry or his wife. In effect it decided in favour of the appellant. Surprisingly, the appellant was not satisfied and he appealed to the District Court. His ground was that the trial court was wrong in giving the respondent the option of refunding the br.dewealth instead of compeling him to return the wife -. The District Court reversed the whole decision of the trial court and ruled that the suit against the respondent, was misconceived. The appel'larit appealed further and his complaint is the same; the lower courts erred in not compe1ig the respondent to return his wife Amina. 1 am in complete agreement with the learned District Megistrate. In perusing the record of the trial court 1 could not find any evidence to the effect that the respondent was preventing the appellant's wife from rejoining him. It appears that there was some misunderstanding between the appellant and his wife which lea. to the wife's fleeing from matrimonial home. Again there was no evidence that the respondent had anything, to do with his daughter's behaviour. It is their own matrimonial problem and the respondent should not have been pulled into its Isiiss the appeal with costs. u. F7 ;( MWJINZA 26TH FEBRUARY1980 M 1/JUDGE. I* ri