N

—, -,-yt? •1 IN VBR HIGH COURT OF TANZ.ANI.A ç AT 14USOMA MAY • 'OwAiz nEGISTRY) (Pc CIVIL APPE'AL bO. 25 OF 19 X (From the deción ófthk Dictrict Court of usocna at Tu6ma !n Civi1 ippca1No. 88 of 1978) BEFORE. OONGO, ES. 1 DISTRICT 'AGISTRE (Original 'uso Urth'Piiary Court Civdl Case No. 95 of 178) S SS• S• . • - KYARAKAJI •• ........ ••iIi,aIs•a•4 0 040 APPELLANT V.lRSUS 0 JHACHA !I13U1DUKI ..'.. i .'. a . . . , . . . . ....e •.• ....•. . a . . . . . .. . . RESPONDENT jUDGE:ENT MFaLILA,, '•••°4 L I S I think this was an unusual claim. The appellant the old lady' • YaRA D/o ICAJI sued the respondent on behalf -of kié-4ei4-4on one Mufungo for the return of bride price amou.nting to 20 hads of cattle or She. 4,O4O/.. The bride in this case is a woman named Robi who- appears to have had a yarned matrimonial historyo First she married the respondent a long time ago but whom she later left to go and marry the appellant's grand father one Rwayi. In accordance with the cuitornary law of their tribe, this Rwayi refunded the bride price amounting to 20 heads of cattle to the respondent, this re-gulanised his relationship to Robi. After living with Robi for a long time, this Rwayi died. On his death Robi was inhoritcd by the appeliant's son Mufungo who also died in 1973 leaving Robi free. It is at this point in time that the respondent comes into Robi's life again. According to the

appellant, Robi -want to the respondent and started living with him as his wife, - and that this being the case the respondent should refund to her the bride pricC which was refunded to him by her grand Thther Rwayi when he marrie.d - Robi when she left the respondent. In her submission, the respondent should not be allowed to get Robi free. The respondent on his part told the Primary Court as he has told all the subsequent tribunals that Robi did not go back to him and became his wife. His version is that Robi went to stay at his home as a guest for she had come to look after their daughter Mukami who was then - expecting a baby and subsequently had a rough delivery. He said thaiRobi as his former wife and mother of their daughter bTukami was free to visit him at any time for any length of time. The Primary Court rejected the respondent's vorsion t they found that he had repossessed Bobi as a wife-and that therefore he was liable to refund the bride price which had been refunded to him by Rwayi. The respondent successfully appealed to -the District Court where the District Magistrate held rightly that the appellant had no cauee of action against him, hlgainst this decision the appellant appealed. • As already remarked' the appellant has no cause of action against the respondent. First of all it must be understood that Robi is not a piece of property to be tossed around between different contending owners. She is a human being with a right to her own existence. - Secondly, as the District Magistrate correctly observed, ub1es.- flobi had elected to be inherited within the a;pellant's clan, her marriage to S • S • S