20161031 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH·COURT OF'TANZANIA · .(OAR es SA~M D_XST,RICT REGISTRY) . . . , . AT DAR_!S SALAAM . . .. {APPELLATE JURISDICTION) · ': ~ _;; • ~•, , I • • ~ ~ • , f ~' • ; • •• ,• ~ •. . . CIVIL.APP.EAL.NO. . . 'I.. ' ..' . ..c ,• 88.,, iOF. 2016 . ·...,, : . ,., ! · •, . . :· :. . ' , .. : . , · · (Originating From Tem~ke District Court Matrimonial· Cause Nb. 49/2011) : - · · _;!:: · '·': ·) - . .. . . . ' ; : .,. . . . '. : . . . JULIANA :·:CHARAJtl!BA. 111i:,■■ . . . 111a. ■ •·•11t11111111111e••·••·11••·••a . ' •' ■ 1l ■■ ne ■ ..e• ■ .••··••a ■■■■■■ APPELLANT·· .: ·~. . :·,;,. ·:•::·.:.-.· .. ·,,,. ·.-:··_.i •. ,. ;, VERSUS SOSTHENES P.AUl.O M-WlTA· .-.. ;.~-~-.-~.~ ..:....................... RESPONDENT,.·. 7:-': .: : .~:::· :.-T:·•:: ,-_. Date of Last Order: . 14/09/2016· . ,.:.--.:- ._:-: ~- ' ,, ., . ·· . Date of Judg.rnent: 3.1/.1-0/2016 . .. .·. ' · '. ·:·: ,: . ,_·;,-\"• ·· JUDGMENT · In -·the District· Court··· of femeke:· at 'Tem~ke; the appellant sued the respondent for. disso!uti~ri ofrnardage and decree ·of divorce, equal division· ·of some matrimonial ·ass,3ts jointly acquired, arrears of maintenan.ce .for 'the :· .· ·· ::··:: ,..,, petitioner since Jar1uary, l.997 to the date of determination· of the case, costs' :·>: · = of the . petition and any other : ·reliefs thf: ' . Court deemed .. just. . . ' .. After hearing ·of the petition,·tbe.-marriage was dissolved with a decree of divorce granted- as pr~yed, an ortjer for payment of Tshs. 3,000,000/= 1 ···• · .. ,,·. being contribution to the matrimonial house and an order for the appellant to'.-_· vacate the matrimonial . ho.use within :_ three ··months from· the date bf;· Judgment. No award as to costs·was issued to either'party. ·. '· · Aggrieved, the -appellant filed this appe_al on five (5) grounds to wit: 0 . 1. That,. the trial Ma gi'strate' er~ed both .in law and in fact by ordering the. . . . respondent to pay the appellant oQly Tshs. 3,000,000/ = as contribution . . towards acquisition of the matrimonial house,· an amount which is not . equivalent to her contribution. · Page 1 of6 ! > i l ·I! . . . I 2. · That, the trial Magistrate erred both in·law and in fact· by holding that t~e appellant failed to prove her contribution in acquisition .of the ~nd · matrimonial house. · ·· · · · · · j 3. Jhat, the trial Magistrate erred both in law and in fact by failing to ord~r . division of the second matrimonial house betwe.en the. appellant and t~e respondent.· ·· 4. l'hat, the trial Magistrate e'rred _both i~ ia·w and ·in fact hiadn1itting exhibit "RS" as evidence that the· respondent received a revocation letter from Temeke · Mvnicipality while in reality~ the houses are still under his . possession. · · · · . I s .. That, the trial Magistrate erred both in law and in fact in concluding thbt \. there is no sewing machine 'while the appellant and the .respondent had six sewing m~chines which are still under the respon(Je_nt's possession. · . , .. ··.,_ . Hearing of the appeal was conducted by written ·submissions whereas .. . by. Women's tt1e. appellant was represented . .. LE;:?gal .. .-.Aid Centre . . . (WLAC) while.the i ·: respondent had services 9f .Pate Legal Consultants & _Advocates. Parti¢.? i _... , ·, ·-i. complied with the Court-schedule, hence, this Judgment. I i ! Addressing . the grounds of appeal, the a·ppellaht through Women's Legbl i · Aid ·Centre submitted for the 1st, 2nd &· 3 rd grounds :·altogether that, .. durirlg ,_·· ·· · · ·; . ·.. . . ! subsistence of their marriage, the couple acquired two houses in Kigambo-rH/-.··-_·, :·.... • I two plots and six sewing machines which ·ought to have been distributed )n :·. . . . . I terms of section 60(b) of the Law of Marriage Act, [CAP. 29 R.E, 2002] under ', ., ... · .. rebuttable presumption-of equal· benefic;:ial interest ,· . . . ' Moreover, the appellant contributed more ih acquisition of the second matrimonial house .. It was argued that the ·appellant contributed in monetary terms, household and dqmestic ·works as- per section 114(2)(b} of the Law of:·. Marriage Act (supra) and as held by the Court of Appeal in. the case of Bi~-· Hawa Mohamed vs. Ally Sefu .[1983] T.L.R 32. :.-·· .,: Page 2 of 6 I ~ -In respect of the 4 th -ari-d 5th grounds of appeal~-the·appellant submitt~d •• , ' . ~ . .• ' • . . ·; ' .{~• . '_: > t· _:.: ·•. .; .•.'. .-..:_ .; .. : . . . : . :.. . . ., .•· : . . ·.. . ' . , ; that, the produced revotatibn_ · Ietter,""."issueq ,by Teri1ek_e -.Municipality -was .:a . . .... : ... : . ·.. :'. ··.. _ _. /:':·-.. . :-•.. I forged one . . with.proof in terms:otsect:ion·.s-7:(a) {ii).:of the Evid~nce . . Act, [GAp. · 6R.E~ 2002]. Be~ides, the ·respond~lit !)lJsa,pprppriated· ~a.me of the assets tiy·:. shifti.ng. six (6) sewing n,achJ~~~ . -~ out.of ~h~\hai;i;,,~niai', hom~ also bf.selling,·._:,::.\ :.· :. . . two pl9ts jointly i?Cquire.d Jj_µfin_g subsistence of their marriage. _ • • , ·• • • ' •, • ,r , ., • ' • • ~ , ,•, •. •• • • ; • ;. • .• ' • : • • • • ' _.: . .. - • · -· ! . ... _, . i In reply; the. resporJdE=_ot'~,-:~01:msel subnJitted_ for the i gro.und that, the st .... ,_, appellant having dese~eo · the respon<;Je.n.t since 1997, she engaged into· an -' :, _;_ -- ::. · infidelity relation \-vith anbther niari· :leav.ing the respondent taking care of :tne) .. ·· ·. · . , !. family with six children cannot be entitled to any share. Besides, the appellar;it:.·.:· . · · :' · . ' i failed to establish her. contribution towards acquisition of the matrimoni~I • I . · : .. asset built in 1984-' for arh/ ehdtlernent whatsoevef; . ·: .:,. l·<O. . ,t·. ; ; .. '· . :: .. . ! nd rd . Regarding the 2 and 3 grolJnds, the respondent's counsel submitt~d .. that, there ..was n9. other house. by th~ time the appellant deserted the . :. I · respondent. He· c:1dded that, there is· no evidence that established h'r • \ contribution towards acquisition of the claimed matri"monial properties. . . Besides, plot number_ ~8- block C_ also._spelt as plot 13 block 38A in • •,· • ••• • • I Kigamboni was granted to. him by m,istake and that it ought to have bee·n·: ··. · . • • M • • • granted to one Siagi Pa.ulo Mwita as stated in_ letter? dated 23/03/199~ and- ·:·-.-· . .-....'" 26/07/2001 with referenq~- number TEMP.LD/18-5474/11 .issued by the office · .· . -· ', .:_,, .· · of Commissioner for Land in the Ministry of Lands and HL:1man.Settlemerits-~·,.· Developn:1ent. Reference was. also made to a ··revocation _from the sarne.: . authority . dated 26/07/2001 . . . . , . ·Besides, the. with . referencE: Na: LD/16°i913/52. . - ; ~ . alleged sewing machines_ have never been in existente. Page 3 of 6 ·_ The two· referred letters· dated- 23/03/1999 with~'. reference· number. - 1 TE:MP.LD/185474/lla.nd .?,.-6/O7/2001 ·v.Ji'th refereri'ce· N-a:. lD/16i9l3/52 .were · .• . . .:· .. annexed in the written. submission by the· respondent's counsel which· were·:.:· · • ••: • • • • • • • • •• V • ,, • •• - ' • '( • : :• • •: •: .::, • • : :• • • • 0 • • •• • • • : < 0 • • 0 • •, • : • " > • • • ; ••• ;, ~ ~ • ·-:• admitted - during trial· as· ·.Exhibits ' . "RS" collectively. ,, : . ' ·., . ~' . . --.. ,, · . . ·. ·.. ;· . _.' : Notably, -. . .- for undisclosed . reasons, .. ·. the appellanf . .. -- .. did";not . . . file. a rejoinder. . . . . _. •· . ... - ... . . ; Havl_ng considere,d ._. the.. evidence .. o.n . record and the respective, -- -:·:,: · ·: subrnissi6ns in this ~ppe;I, the foUowi~fr are tne· cleli:beratrbn·s .- • • • • •, • •. • • • • • :•,, ,:: ;, • • .. • • • • . , cif ;th'i~/co~rt{n· ,·_ ::...., -... · - ·: . • •~ I.. •"' ' • •• •" • .... • < I. ~ • •' 0 disposal. ,_: ··- 1 •• .-,_, • . •. . @through to the grounds of a~peal, ~n revolves arou.nd acquisition, .. ' ..• •.•·. _contributi~n and apportioning of matrimonial properties. . .... ·. ..... It tis. evident on :··record<tnat~ : the. appellant owns :a· house. in Majohe ..: ;, - - - where·the _respondent does not. dispute its' owner.ship. by the appellant addin~r<· :. :· ; ·· ·. ~···. . • ~. ... 1'. that, his non resistance is because the appellant knows how· she~.built .usirlg· _money.given to her by the respondent for domestic use. · · · ' · Though the. appel!ant asserts that the _couple ·-·own· two •·flo'us~s in .. Kigamboni, the evidence on record by the appellant herself is tHat-the-_<:::ouple ·- · acquired only orie house during the subsistence of their marriage. On the : other hand, the respondent stated during trial, that the couple acquired two · plots whereas plo~. ·as, w.hich has a_ house mKigamboni was acquired by the· · ,.,· • couple during the subs\ste.~ce of their marriage, but was later dis~overed to· • • • l • • • • · have been allocated to tt,e respondent by mistake. . _ .. ,. T~e ·respondent add~d.- in evidence that, the ·other contested ·house is ... . . ' the· one he built from ~ome. secured loan·s after depa·rture of the appellant Page 4 of 6. ~ •. . . · ·· :·from their matrimonial house in 1998 and 2002 as the· appellant left their ··, .:... · ._.. · . . ·. rliatrirnoniaLhome in 1997 a$ per the Court proce_edings.,_. ·. :.. of ·affairs, this Court finds no 'reason to. dispute ·· ·~:, :. ;-> .·. t" ..• .:·. ". From the· above state the revocation: of plot number 88 biock C which is also sp~lt a~ plot 13 .block ·~-:la•:·/?::;,: ': :: 38A in Kigamboni and that the. appeUant did not contribute towards . . . . .· acquisition of the h-ouse .. she . is· currently in occupation. ·. . . .. The assertions . that:the : :::<··, .•-/ ''\, ... couple acquired six sew!ng machines and two more plo~s are not in evidence-.:-,,: :--·,:· ..!·'·,:·:' 0 Since the same were mer~ly put forth through the appellanfs subm ission, ·..th·eJ.:~ '. :::~ \',; . same cannot be relied upon for they do not form part of the evidence. Such stance was stressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of case of : ·. ·. , .. t:he Registered Trus-te~s of the Archdiocese of Dar es S~laam v.s." the :C:-:.:-:<,i:?\ 1 ;,:".:~;._ ~~-i·Chainuan ~unju ViUage Government and 4 Others, Civil Appeal No. ·t4:T >"-.\··:, 11 /.·... ·•. · :;•Of 2006, (UnrE:-~porteq), -(Dar es Salaam Registry) wl1ere the Court had the.:: i>i·. :. ,:··,.· · ..•.' -following··in-obser,atlon:·" · .'· " ·: ....... We appreciate f\'lr. El Maamry's point that a political settlement out ·, of CoUit was glven in the written submissions as a reason for· the delay. .. ' . With __ re$pect howevfilt. submissions are not evidence. Submissions are .• gr~nE;!raUy meant to .r~flect ttle general features of a party's case: They are elaborations or __wjanations _on evidence already tendered. They are. expected to ·contain arguments on the applicable law. They are not intended to be a substitute for evidence ........... ". . It is from the abo~~: that this Court finds such averments· to be of no < .. legal effect. If that stood the truth', they' oughf to have be·en so testified during trial. Notably, there has not b~en any legal· confrontation either in the:°:· :·.-: ·.· '· . . ~ .. grounds ·of appeal or rather, in the written submission. that there was·-·-··::::,. anything crucial which was testified during trial but was not taken on board in : • ,r • • ~ • • • the proceedjngs by the trial Court. On that footing, this Court ~annpt _pe a Page 5 of 6 ~ i· . . i! -. conduit of undermining the·~-~i·d-~~~~-~~~ountrng oh vvhat really "happened . . . . . . - . . . !s-" :- ... . was . well ' recorded by the trial.court. •. .· . .. · . ;··: ..,::,:,·:~.. , _:,_!, .. -~-:.:,:;}"_:·:.. ,:: ···.~-~.::·· _:. ·,:-·.1 _.·: ·;!-i . . - . :. · · Likewrse, from the· above· in 1 U-ni-$dh, tt,i5_ Cod rt firids_· ho reason· to vary : the·. findings of ~:the trigl).dQu·rt _:.:co~sid~~~ng th~t'-:.the .appeilant has ·been . alloc~ted the house in _·),1aj&he --~-ith. ::~:pportio·n ~f>rs.hs .. 3,000,000/= as . • .. • • • . i ·• • -• • •,•:· • ·• ~· •• ' ". . ·~ . . . ·~ . • .. : • . •• • •• • •• . • :- ' • ' •. ,· ' ·: ¢or:itribution. . towards . acquis~t1qq .. : .. .·,· ·bf the· hbu$e~ T,he ·appel_lant _did not establi$h· . . . . ···.. .... . .. . . . I. · .. ·.. how much or ·at 1e·ast a.t'°\:.Vhat· level she contributed towards its acquisitici_n_·. - through the ali'eged poultry~ b:u:s,pess-:.:and at'the same time managing to raise, .'.·:, · the hotise in Majb_he, . !: I '· ' ·' . ·. .;·•.-:). ,. . -.1·.: :-.'.::· : ..-.: ·. . .. ·-' Also, even assuming- that,the· said six sewing machines are in existen¢e . • . . . •• • '\ • •. " ·•::·: • ,C··. ·;-. ,· _:. • : ·: .•.· . : .. • . : :•-,,ano .. tl)at they wer~ .,.99qgnt., -fWr!D.f} JtJ~,:-~lJb?i$tence,.c0f the mar~iag~;. ! ' . _- •, ~prisidering that the appellaht'leftthe:,ma'tritr1orffa·1 .hdnie since ..1997 and lit · ••.. • , • : ,• ,, • . • • •I .,_: •• • • ,'' • • •: ''. •• • •, • • •, •. - ; \ '. f" • , ••• .._:• • ~- ;~ :· , , :, •.• ' ''. • : • • . .. . . i. . was .the· ·. .\;.. . respondent . who ·, . . shouldered the responsibility to take care of their six ·· '. I ',.. · , sibli11~j"s born frorr1 their" mari·iage, yet, this Court-finds the same to have be~-ri• · ; ' used in raising the siblings born from the rnairiage. . !- ' ! :-~ - i . In the premises,. t~e appeal· is ,found =-non· ,meritorious in law -and :is . .· hereby dismissed in its .entirety. Considering that the parties were wife and husband who nevertheless need to_ maintain good terms for the sake and throu_gh ties of the bl.essed issues of the marriage d~spite that currently they·. do not greet each other since 1997, I make n.o. order as to costs. It is· so'· , ordered.·