19961108 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN Tm: HIGI-I COURT OF TA\TZAFH. ...----ES S '-..:r.,r~"..~·' 1 ..AT--·1J.'\R 'PC.CIVIL.APPEAL NO. 175/1995 ... . ·•,• KOONO AB.Dti.IL.IB KINGO ~. ~ • •• ••• •• • .A."?PLIC.!\.Nr VERSU,S •••••••••••••••••• m.:-'3J?ONDEN'l On 2,/2/19?3 the parties got married at Mwanga Kigoma ullder- Ial.e.flllt.. ,ite. ·in 18/12/1993 their marriage was dissolved by Temeke Primary Court ,men ► it waa found to have broken down irreparably. fhereatter the eotlrt considered the question of custody of the childNa if the ma.r:r-iage under s.125 of the Law of Marriage Act, 1971. The relSpondeat INAN.liJlt ·t;r ISSA was awarded the c~tody of all the six children •! the lla1'1"~• ~ ;;;;;;;t-~ ordered to pay 9000/= under S.129 & 130 ~!"'(~~ the mai~to~ ef these cbildr'en. The court considered the qul:'lstion of divisioa et prt,pe~r · which th~ .parties· had jointly acquired during the subsistence of 'the_ir' ~~ ... wider s.11~ _~f the Law of Marriage Act No, 5 of 1971. The appellant M'.\NENO LBDALLIB KINGO was aggrieved with the division e.f matl"i.~nial property in that the case before the court wrus for divorce and not tor division •f Matrimonial assets. His appeal to Temeke District Court waa aur.r?nrily rej ::ctod. !be appellant then lodged this appeal before this court. In his grounda et a~pea1 he rais~d two ~ounds of appeal which attack the divisio:~perty. It ia his contention th-:1t the house at 'I'anrJika and a small sh~ntbn at Ukonga both bolong to nis ,JOtu~r and therefore are not subject to division of matrimonial property. Thia ho.s been stronsly challenged by the respondent. I 'l'his issue w1:1.s also raised at th.:; trial :ourt where it was exhawstedly dealt / The Pl"inic."l.ry Court wns snt isficd w:~ -':'1 foe. evidence before it that that house nad the Ukon.~. tf.1~mba were theirs and. th.:i.t they had jo:intly acquired and impreYed · du.ring tho subeietonce of their marrfo.1:se. The court then •rdered that they sh.ot,l,J.d be , T~Uet\ arad tho rcspo~ent Mw.anahamisi be paid half of their valuo., !l'!le s:--1uc ·issue cropped up during the henring of the apperu. by t~e District eourt. Tho Dustriet Court was satisfied :with the decision of the 1'ri~~Court. It 8Ui11daiiily rejected the appeal. ... - 2 - I h1111e considered the grounds ra!scd ~.nd the reply by the respondent • .,.~. · I have also considered tl10 trio.I court I s decision on this. I hnvo been quite sntisfied that according to the evidcnee aYailable together with the overall circi,::l:3tn.nces surrounding this ease the Primary Court was right in holding thnt tl.1e Tnndika house and the Ukongn ·shamba. wero jointly acquired by the couples during the subsistence of their marriage. The ratio of¼ the vnlue is reasonable. The appellant had all along maintained t~at they belong to his mother but he has failed_ to produee concrete evidence ·or to call his oother if she is still alive. This appeal lncks merits. It is hereby dismissed with costs. At the hearing of this ~ppeal the responden~ complained remotely by osking the appellant as to why the amount for the maintance of the ehildrea should not be raised from ?000/= to 1.5,000/= n month to what the appellant ____,__. proteeit-ed.. An amount for ma.intenancc of children is not stagnant. It can be varied from time to time dependine; on changing eircurnstruices. ihe res~de.nt is at liberty to present her complaint before the original court for eonsidernt ion. That court knows the general living standard of the peop1e in thnt area. It cc..n de.:il with this issue under 8• 133 of the I.aw of &rriage Act. 1971. s. N. KAJI JUDGE 8/11/96 .8/ll/1996 Coram: Mshote DR-HC Por the Appellant For the Respondent c.c. Eliuter Cou.r~: Judgment delivered to the parties in chambers· this 8th day of November, 1996. R. s. Mshote DLSTRICT RmI~TR~R --------r-...-- ___. . . . --- " ':" " - -.~ r-