20021030 TZHC Mbeya
The appellant failed to prove that the respondent received the carcass of the dead cow or that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses. The respondent is entitled to recover the cow paid as betrothal price since the marriage did not take place and the cow was not returned.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20021030 TZHC Mbeya
- Parties
- Appellant: Francis Mwakyanyjka; Respondent: Job Mwakuyusa
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 30 October 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Bride Price Recovery, Breach of Betrothal Agreement, Return of Property
- 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
Francis Mwakyanyjka
Appellant
Job Mwakuyusa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to recover the cow paid as betrothal price after the marriage did not take place
- 2 Whether the appellant proved that the respondent received the carcass of the dead cow
- 3 Whether the appellant was denied the opportunity to call witnesses
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to prove that the respondent received the carcass of the dead cow or that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses. The respondent is entitled to recover the cow paid as betrothal price since the marriage did not take place and the cow was not returned.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellant to pay back one head of cattle (cow) to the respondent as betrothal price.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
( ' ~ ~- ~~ L ; .. \'(-'~ ""'"~' . _. IN THE HIGH COURr OF TANZANIA .' AT MBEYA ORIG Il~AL JURISDICTION (Mbeya Registry) . {PC) CIVTI., APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2002 • f (From Ori~inal Civil Case No. 12 of 2001 of ~ I' .. ,- Busa le Primary Court, Kyela District Cour-t Civil .J>.ppeal· ·No.,' 12 of, 2001 . I , ' .. ' ·,· FRANCIS MWAKY.ANYJKA •••ooo•••ooo•oooo••••• APPELLANT ·- I Versus JOB MWAKYUSA RESPONDENT ·JUOOEMENT • I; ' .· Mffl.J..A-L2_. This ic a s:fmple appeal preferred'.' by the Appellant FRANC~ M\~AKANYIKA. He was the "l'efendant in the Primary Court, of Busale· whereat the Respondent J0,!3 MvJ.AKYUS sued him for the recovery' of one cow which the Respondent .. • ! 1 •• had paid to the Ai;rp~llant• s father as '.a· betrothal price in respect of betrothed acreement between.: the Resportdent a~d-the Appellant's sis~er to ~ I marry. Als·; paid t6·gether _yvith the cow to the· Appellant's father was 1 .. ' ' · Shs .. •;i,ooo)= _. · As it turned ·out -the marriag~· · did ·not •t~ke place on the assertion b:,r the Appellant that the Resporldent. failed .to pay to_ tbe App~llant•s father another cow and a bull as full ,bride-price. It was also asserted ' r. . at the Primary Coui•t that• the cow tha:t was paid to and received by the ' " Appellant's father died after two (2) months·. Then the Appella.nt' s father MW.AW! SALEI-,_j MWAMBUSI summon~d thej.r betrothed wi tn~~s DAU.Jt MWASYEBULE ·" and his brother GODWIN MWANGAFIKE to "1itriess the handing over qf the carcas ( th,.- dead cow)• ' . But the Respondent throughout from the primar1-court to this court has been d~: ..ying to have been handed over the alleged carcass, only . ' admitting ·. ·1at he \.u:1s paid back the T.Shs .7 1000/.,. Both the courts below were satis.Led that there was no iota of evidence confirming the alleged handing ov --~ and receipt of the desd cow by JOB MWAKYUSA. o• • ./2 - 2 - ·, At the hearing of this appeal it is the appellant's case that the Primary Court refused him to call .the.. two . witnesses DAUD MWASYEBULE and . . GOJJ:JIN M¼'ANGAFIKE. I think this statemerit of· the appellant is an after- thought as he is trying to 'convince this court to call additional evidenee in his - endeavour to c~neoct false evidence ~ii th a view to bolstering his evidence at the trial eo.urt. , Eve~. if the cow w,as . .dead the Respondent ~uld not be ·held re~ponsible for its death because the cow was in the custody • ,t ,;· of the Appellant's father for more than two months after it was received and accepted by the Appellant's father. Furthermore• the Appellant did veterinary not producer ·. zevidence to satisfy the primary court that the said -cow really died. Under those circumstances. I am in full ~gre~ment .,;~_:,;_· with the two courts below that the Respondent's case at the trial court was more probably t'rue than the Appellant's case •. On that premise I find this appeal frivolous and vexatious and-in that regard I dismiss it in its entirety, ·wif~1- costs. ' The two .judgements .of the lower. cour~, which are c:oncurrent ,. are hereby upheld,, In the result the Appell.:mt ia still,, i,n,debted .. , to the ' Respondent to pay back one :·head of cattle (cow), _beJng th.e betrothal prie'e, due to the Appellaat•s -sister hr-eaol~d the .agreem~tJit to 'l».~ ' the Respondent. . \ JUDGE 30.10.200_2 At Mbeya, in t:ie pre!3en,ce "of. both. parties. JUDGE