19880407 TZHC Mbeya
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's daughter did not challenge the ex parte judgment, which found her at fault, and the appellate court cannot revisit the merits of the original divorce proceedings at this stage.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19880407 TZHC Mbeya
- Parties
- Appellant: Ikata Mwaijibe; Respondent: Esau Mwakuyusa
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 7 April 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Divorce, Dowry, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Ikata Mwaijibe
Appellant
Esau Mwakuyusa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was the cause of the marriage breakdown and whether less dowry should have been ordered to be returned
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's daughter did not challenge the ex parte judgment, which found her at fault, and the appellate court cannot revisit the merits of the original divorce proceedings at this stage.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Appellant to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
c 4 IN THE. HLGH COtJRT OF' TANZANIA ATMBEYA (Pc) CIVIL APPEALNo2&oF•198o (From the decision of the District Court of Rungwe District at Tukuyu in ,CiyiJ. Appeal No.15 o1980 and Tukuyu Urban Primary Court civil ease No019 of 1979 Before: JA. Mwaki'hba,District fiaistrate) IKAT.A MWAIJIBE, • 000000...;. is.... so e.00. APPELL.ANT versus ESAtJ ri'IWAKYU'SA 0 • 0 ••• • • • • 00 0 •, • • • RESPONDENT JUDGMENT This appeal has no merit at all. During the cUvoroe pzoeeedings between the daughter of the appellaflt and the respont, ,eithez' the daughter of the appellant nor the appeliit"ji.im&1 3ppeared in court despite several adjournments.. The trial 'Qourt, therfore, was not given any evidence regarding the alleged matrimonial offences of the respondent It gave ex parte judgmen4 for the respondent. There was.no subsequent application by the &aughter of the' appellant to set aside tIat juigment nor was thei' any appeal against it. The possition remained that the daughter of he appellant was the one at fault, and was the cause of the break up of the marriage. In this appeal'the appellant has complained in the petition of appeal that in fact it is the respondent who was the, cause of the break up cf the marriage andtherefore 1 that less dowry should have been ordered to be returned to the respondent. With respect, that is too late in the day. This coilrt cann put itself in the position of an appellate tribma'l diret3y fmia the decision of the Primary Court in the divoroe •pz'oceo4in 1 therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs , J.A. MROO At IVlbeya JUDGE 7/4/88 ' JAWATM lirn,. -