19940818 TZHC Dar es Salaam

~~.:., .. :, J,1/2'° h w<f / · . !~ IN TEE Jll(fa COURT OF TA!IZJlNIA I, Jfl'V/ 1/V .qi,v:;?~ _-,.{:i ..f J .4T_P.4!..~ SAL~ . -. (~ ~;;.~j (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO(, 118 OF 1992 . /;-;~ I . I . t-;_J • .,,•,r HADIJA OI\U~I •••••ce,e•4'D••••••~•.,.• APPLICANT . :'1:. :,:. •... '.,».. ve:rsus ·1 ' ::U.TIBU IIAi~lSI fo•11•1t•••o-o•••••o•.oo• RESPONDErf.Ll . ~t _..,.__,~_,.,.,._a __ ,._;a•-•---------- !. ' ·-.... --~-- ~U1)Gr.1i<J'fl' Ig.CKANJA,.,1 J. : This apPeal originates from a matrimonial cause which was determined by the Primary Coui·t a·~ K:i.nondoni. Aecord:ixlg to the facts which were fo:·,nd by the trial court the litigants _began to cohabit in 1987. L.t the instance ·of t1.1e appellan·!; the ~ellant's father ~sisted the couple to proo~·e a plot on which :l}iey built a '· house. In 1989 the spcuses fo1·malized. their marriage itnd moved into their• house., The maxriage was no·~ to last J the resPondent became promiscous and, as a resvJ.t, began spending nights ou:b.sid.e soon after the couple had moved into the ma:briillonial home sometime :1n· 1991 ~ ' <1 There wao cv:i.clence t}1at o:c -the time t,;f• building the house the ; appellant was a :__ ousc.; wife and. -~>.o respondent was ss.:inf11lly Employed.. mi testified ·t;:.1 .-~ he bougJ.rc t!.:i.o plot on which he built t;,,1e house from / one HatH.u l:..thv..-:iani ii.1 -~1:c presence of Isrna,il illusa, 0.:nari Ally @ 1lJ.4r Omari and porso:-.1 w.':J.o was idonti:'.!iod ·::,y only _one name, S ;aid. lJ.th.~_ugh the appellant callod a total o::: · fo1.U' witnesses~ includ:b1g herself, to ,~stablish her case~ t;io fuspoud!:ll1·b, who featured a:J -;;~10 roo 20:1d.ont -- t chose to go i·~ alone-o At ·i;hc Qj_1<1 o:i: the day tho ·i;rial court unan~roouscy· · ucti ti,oJl.9~ · found that tho :-" _ ., now ·tho appellant hnd proved her claim. In faot, lllly Oma.ri who -witnessed tho rc:sPQndenJ, bu,y tho ploJG testified. foi the apPellant as PW ..4, oorroboratmg w'.aat the :~ti tilall.o:had :., testified on. The learned Distric·;; Magistrate who heard th19 first ,.( '\{ . ~ppeal UJ)held these findings, The trial primary courJv, af·(;er considor:ing the evidence, dissolved ilh.o ma:aa-i,Q,so .Ql14 ordercd.··the present r0spo11dc.n~ to PaJ" .·_) '·- · .Rti.c .. ,300,.000....00 being the .;;_,:iti tib:1.1:,r· sh&"e in the value of the hous~ \ · . which was, according to -cl1.o Priui.~l".f Court, bull t through the joint · ':, \efforts of· tl1e opouscc dtu•inc; tb.o.:i.:r' matxiroonial life,. The respondent . ' /r ~.Pealed. ll,ficr consic:e:ri::lg ·tt.c :facts tho learned District lfagistr.a.:te held that tho apPcllant wao 110·~ eutitled to m1y en.arc in the house ...../2 .• ''.}' 2 becau3e it was built at .1, tii",10 wb.011 thG litigants were livmg as mere paramours. E:once this E,)pcnl .. According to his jt1,(lgmont -~he learned appellate J)istrict Magistrate held tl.1at t:1c iuarrin.go wo..s contracted after-tho house had been constructecl, c,;,1l' J.c h:~soo ·:;'.li:::; ?in.ding on -~he testimony of Ally Oma.ri (PW4). I 11.1:ilfo 000:c1 ·c:.,.o record of tho trial primary -ooUl't and I find :;.l6:;fl.:6J:'O.- · s H r:::trrccd as opined by the lcar;.1cd appellate magistrate. ll.ccorch.1,·; to_}.hc record of' tho trial prim2.ry court Ally Oma.ri (PW4) said thu.s: n... • 1-1~.ai alianz2.. lrnJ.-::na na mda.iwa toka 1987. 198L alik...1wa 2..112/ca:i."uta sehemu ili aishi. }Jilc~,ta:futa. kiwa;;.1jc1, nimemueloza mdcd.wa :nae akanunUa n~ipo wote 2 wal:awa walcishughulikia ujonzi. I✓ki.tofali ya nyt,~ba hiyo yalipigiwa. nyumbwi kwangu • •• 6 ohughuli ·zo·lie .z3, ujenzi zilifanyjJca nyumbani kwc:-sngu. Mwa.l-.:c, 1989 ndipa nikawaozesba kwa ndoa y-2 Kiisl2a na hvku. wakiendelea juu ya Ujenzi wao.,~ Mimi nilil-::uwa. sJ.w.b.idi ~ati 'Uliponuitua kiwanja.. •• " . The ovicl0l1co of Pvt.4 j_s not disputed in any rnat.er.ial pa.rtio~. I In that c01mcotj on thn trial priac"XJ oou:rt was entitled to hold that the appellnnt paticipatod :Lr. tho construction of the house. lwen if the li tiga;,.1t; wero r:iarricd. c.t 2. tii:1e whon the hous0 was in the •final stages cif oonstrn.ction, i·~ still is matrimonial property :in ~ms of S.114(3) of ·lihe Law of Na,r1•i.;1.g0 Act, No. 5 of 1971 beca:use such assets include - 11 . . . assets ow1ed. boforo tho marriage by one party which he.we boen substantially improved during the marriage ••• by their joint efforts.n Since tb.e litigants 1noved .ill-co the house after only ono room -was ready for ocoupation, a11cl their being ·no evidence -to the contrary, tho construction of the roJI1Q,in.iJ.1g par-Ii was completed. by their joint efforts. In these circ1..1.:::1stancos -'i;he trial primary court was entitled to award the appellant llor sha!'.0 of the matrimonial asset. I would therefore allow tho appocl. Lastly let no cc.;;r tll-?,t ·this appeal has be0c"1 .~ etorminod in the absence of' tho parties becr::..,,..se t:::.cy have not been traced s:ince 23rd November, 1992 when ·chic iJn.·ctcr cc1::.t1c up for hearing. Tho proviso to .... I ) 3 sectio:1 35 of the I-1;_:,.,gistru.tos Conrts /.,ct has boen applied. In -~he I'GSP.l t ·t~HJ 0,ppod u,;ccceds end it in accordingly allowede TI10 decisim, ol' ·0::.G Dis-c:rict Court is set aside. The decision o:E tllc Kinondoni Pri1-12.xs Gou.rt is restored. The :respondent shall· bear tho costs 11crc 2ml j11 ·c}1c courts below. Delivered. Parties a.bsen:;,. I !f!ACWTJA -- 'JUDGE 18-8-1994..