19710924 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE HIGT C0TT ( TAT?A AT ANA Appe]Jnte Jurisdiction. (Po)cri APPEp No.54 07 1970 -(From the ddciS.cn of the District Court of North •'ara District t in Civll Appeal Nc18 of 1970 ef ore C .Lwe1cnoer sr District aoistrate. Oriirinl Cijil ease c,4 of 190 of tc rirnarv CcuTt nf Shirati Defore F.0nchiwa 9 aistrnte.) FINIHAS Oi0Pi0. . PPPFLLAT\fP (0ri. Defendant.) versus !ILLISOw TIGxJJ. • • • , . RESPONDENT(Orio. Plaintiff.) J0NTllA7, AHJO This is a second appeal frow the decision of the primary court orderiio the appellant to pay the respondent 8 head of cattle. It IVa undisputed that, sometime in 1962 9 the appellant abducted and narried the resncndent's dauhtcr. The respondent accompanied by one Absalin 9 P.2 proceeded to the appcllant 1 s house where they met the P]?e1laflt'S father, D..2. cccrdin tc the respcnent and ihsnuim 9 they arreed that the anellant should pay tho respondent 24 head of cattle 9 i.e 4- cows, 10 hcifers and mq bulls. The client was not present when the rreement was 'eached, apparently because their custcisdid not periit him to take nart in such ne;otietions. The respondent - said that suhsouently, he was paid only 16 head of cattle an-p that, despite repeated. dciands and even thouch the appellant was a person c-f' iens, the balance of the dowry had not been paid. The ape11ant's case as given by D.02 was that they did, not f i x a, ny dowry. He had then

paid hio 16 head. of cattle. and 'the only f4ther claim he would- accept is in respect of tro more animals fcr payinc tao relative of the respondent, as thci.' customs prescribe - The prinary court unoniiousiy fcuj..d for the resnondent and ordered the appellant to pay-up the remainina cattle. Jhc;re can be no doubt that the court was entitled to that decision. Indeed it '.iould have been unreasonable in the circumstances to hold, as was urred in the appc-1lants case, that no dowry s fixed. It is s4r:oested in the "emcrandu'- of apeal to this court that if it is the opelient's father who agreed to pi r - the cattle, the the claim shc-ulC. have been made to him. Lao rrimery court satisfied that Luo customs recluded the appellant fror, tkin pert in nec'otiations of dowry in the circumstances of the case and that he was 'cperly represented. h' his father asThis eent. I 1ou]i9 not be entitled to ruestion WA • this. Iik the District Court 5 therefer, I find that th:re is little crit in the apea1, and it is hereby dismissed. As neither party appeared, I do not propose to award any costs. I wcu1d ask the District Court to deJ.irer this ju± after notif1rin' the parties. .LJonathan.) Ac. Judre.