19940716 TZHC Mtwara

·\ •· ,·,: IN THE HIGH C l ,, ' . '. . AT MI11fARA · CIVIL APPE.i\L ·No 1-0 -OF 1993" . LDIDI DISTRICT COURT CIVIL CASE NO 3 'OF 1993 ORIGDIAL PRIMARr. C<YlJ.tlT CD(IL CASE ~O •••.OF 19.. Before C.J. Litand.a, E~q_ District_ Magistrate MARIAJ.'1 ISIIA.IL • •• • • • • • • • •• AJ?PELLA1"fl1 versus RIU3TIIDI SA11J1'1 NACHINtJ;.aJ RCSPONDENT ·- JUDGMEMT rilKWAWA, J. . Tb.is api:ieal arises· from the dec•ision of the District oou:rt of Lindi conoern1ng the ownership of a house' sitiated on P~ot No.' 4, Block E . along Eila.t Road within the t'o,msliip of Lindi, -ld1icl1:.-hereimfter I shall refer to as "the house 11 • . The appellant, I<W:Ul'JlJ ISI'!A.IL, having lost her ... . claim before the trial court, now appeals ,· to' this court once again thrQUgh her attorney- one rsrt\;tL .HAJ,'.fISI lmAIFEY .- --- · The facts of the ·case, ~y, be oonviniently. stated as f oll,ows. · The . appellant -ani the :respondent? llASHIIlI SALDU NACHINUKIJ, -were married under Islamic law and seemingly there was an amorous relationship . . . , . · (as I .will l)}..'8Sent1y demonstrate) for almost thirty years. They are now, hO'Wever, in separation though the. appellant maintains that they are extra-judicially divorced. It is no_t in'elevaht to ioontion tha~ i have before ma a P3nding matrimonial matter Jihich is in respect. of their issue of divoroe. It is common ground that some tine in 1~76;- ·when all was candy bet-ween the· parties, . . the. :respondent purchased ·a house, .il1 the apP31lant. 1 s name ani had it reg:istci-ed in hor. name as -wellt This is evide_n~d in the house p..irchase agl'8emnt (:iTI:x:hibit P.5) and ·in the tra~fe:t- of t~ right. of aooupancr ( tra~fer deed) which 1'1-ns tend.0roA in eVidenoe as ~xhibit F .2 . ' It is on this . basis , that. the appelllnt ' . asserts . her ·claim over the. house. which she boldy &sserts was given .to her as n ~'ift• This is where the parties. iSsues• The respon:lent in rebuttl;ll vigorously 6~1t~rrl.s' • . unQontrowrlably i • that at the material_ pcr:j.od ho was_ a TANU leAder am· was_ as such gove~a/ bound by the "Draoonio11 ) party• s leo,dershif ··code arising f;rom the '".' · famous ARUSHA DECLARATION~ The l~ttef ·~saent.i.all.7 forbad4 ( :011t~~d) :PalV leru!ers to mm hou.se~_.f'or rental ~ a c,r rewa:rd. 1 ••••/2 \ It is his main oontentie,n that in his desperate bid to avoid the said leadership oode; he com eyed the otherwise his house, to his wife/appella1~t .. 1 The trial magistrate wa.a awarently -swayed ·and. ··towed by this respondent's a:rgument. He thus, ruled against th(=) ~p~i1~·ht~. ...... '.'... -·. For ease of reference, let 100 reproduce in extenso 1ib.E.rt the. learned magis~rate ., : thus oorolud.edJ ., "The defendant ola'imed· that lie wa:~· .a. TA.NU. 1~ader 'Who was bound by the leadership code·· of the ..fm.lSha ·decb~ation 'whereby it was ui'llawful to have more than onehouse. · In order to•. cover himself; 'he had to register the house in- .the name of his -wite;·b(,.t 'itl' Order to ma~ it be lmown his property he had to put his ovm :namo 11Nachil'ililrui 1 at the am instead o-f the . ' w.i.feis family naim 11 of Ismaili. Ally"• Though, may no~--ba intending to ·r stand as a witness, but the. fact that many TANU- leaders were hiding ~heir properties through thoir wives, ·chilclxen or near relatiws, is indispensable a.n:l the defendant could not oo an exoo.ption.. to this. I find that there is no eVidence to prove that tho plaintiff was given ~ha house as a gif~, or a rewa'X'li ani as such, I. find .tho. md.t not. to .have been p:roved e~n;. on the starrlard 'required ana:. in the· evon~ ·. the suit ~s dism~eoo_d :.,. ~ · 11 .: . ;~ :. As_ r haw already indicated, the $1.tbstanoe ·of 'the· claim. in -~his. matter is the ownership of the house. The bas_io question for determination ~' • . . . . >· t ani decision is whether tho nouse ·bolongs ·to the appellant or· to the :respondent~ . ' ·. Happily,· there aro scvoral local an:l English deoisions which' are :rolevant to this. case • . I ~11 therefore resort to some. of them. For the purp.ose dr 'this apr,oa_l I shall begin 'with' 'the ~aso. of MOHAJlillD NYAio:OZE v. SOFIA g.fuo MJSSA (1971) Hob.n. n '4'.13. · In "tho NYAKIOZID 1·.S .oase (au~) tho defcrndant/ap~llant.a'nd the respondent/SOFIA djo MJSSA wre_~rried und~r Islamic la'"r.i ahi ~ ~ .:~. o • • • togc;thor as ·husband and wife ·.f_or seven ·years. They -we:ro later aivorce·d. Thd dispute' arose after t'.!18. di voroe and _it concerned the ownership of a houoo a11d a oupboe.~ which the :respondent allee;ed the ·appell,mt gave. her as· a g:i.:f.'t during the marriage •. · The respondent instituted proceedings in the pr:µno.ry 001..u:-t of l'f.iacorooni, Dar ~ ·es - Salaam claiming the possess1on _o'f, the house and aupboard. ,, . . · The. trial primary cpu~t fOUl)d as a fact that the appellant ". I \..: • ' • intended tµat the house. a.nd cupboard. should belong to th~ :respondent . C. ~~ ~ . . . . . . . and ord.e:i:ed the appall.ant _to surrcn:dcr tho house and the cupboard to • I: • ,; . •• I•. • ':' .' ·• • • • • ' ~ • • ... ,~ hor. The district oou.rt. inter alfo only upheld the judgment of the prima_ry i ' • ' • •. oourt in regard· to: tho recovery of tho c1..1.phoard and not the housoe _ 3 - .. 0:.1 ap:p3..;il .this oo:::.:r:t ( o:c:trc;::; ;;-, ..1s -.'.) tb.0n ,r,:w) hold il:to:;:-;:lia: .. ,,,,,.- l.>1:..ths inot,.:n'l.t c •.,n_o, ·not 1)..:1li).:c i·.~ -L-:i ilYJJQOL,;]'.s _c<lse, t>o ·/ c··,::)st,moo of t;_\::, ol.:iim :i.:i tl:i::.i ,,c.'.c•:, fa t::.o Q'lmel's!lil). of tho ho·.'.So i:.: o.i.s}.J1.'.to. T'.c.c q_"..'..'Jst:i.on. for a.oto:...·,J.:L:'intto~:i.. i~1 this case in u:.:o·Lor t!.l.3 h0'1..'.00 ~,olon:::;-s to tl10 · ,.:,.::7p()ll1.u1t or ·to t:~,o ;i:0020:--J:.bnt •. As amplJ" dQDl(rnStr_i.t')d_, dn ·t:.id .tZOr-"-J:--J~,.:1t-.;d a,,ailabla 1 :rooo:ro.od evidenoes tJ-.:.6 h01,13e .-ros ~ t in 197G v.:'ld i'fi.lS ·oorn::oqi,:~j.'lt1y :ra,~d :L: tb.0 j.1dlile of r:..-Lt:L:J. .u · tst;,:µi,. ;;;..c:.rrriu-1;:;7 o ·J-.t ii3 t:..to ui.)::,'Y.1 l".1.,.111t ' s main . u'.i.•. . :,_:i.a:.,::.1, ~ "" 1ba . t tho b.01.:1..se in q·.:0stion was ~'Ci t:"or P'·-'-' intb tho, ;?~1:r-ti-J_~_. j<?i11t Y'.:iJ.::10n :--.,.o:i: lk,a it i.lOq~i:t'OC. Jw: t:10 joi11t In ro·:Jt~tt~.:i., tho ~32xi11d011t osqo'.-:.tic,ll:l o.srn~:rt t~.1::.t :.lG tLo. am.)ClJ.i.-\llt Jlcld ;.1~t cont:T.'i1r•.1.ted to t:'.l.G) :i;t·.:;.•o>...~so .p:doe ;f t~}.o :J.o::so -:~:-il. aa :20 h...~d ~-c,-~iste:i.~J. - t].J.G ;).ousc ' ;i;.1 tho ·1·~ ~ --~. ~ ···· · rr I"·· a;· .~•-'--;:,.-·- 11;-.....\iL - •y:-i..u .......... · .,.,. .1.,.,,: .,;;.'i-;.;;:,.~ . . . ' <-',nd 1\ct ~--'.,t;:;}t'..B :i:r..:.. _L,L A.i,'I.i'.t th.6:ro ·nas , ; :?'.!.~t,;lllption of tn:.nt ,.rn l.to -tl.id SQ t61c,l~:- I • te ~,'lreid ,·tllo loaclers~i:;} eoo.a. ::t is t.is IJ£:in ----•-- • : c:U'@.1:J!Ol'l.t that _- ho.ti he· (I contr.:i.rs intcr.tio:1. :.10 uo~u.c'l. :·.-:vo not c:\t all. ,1.,3ed tLo l'lrlillO F I '·:Cfos_te11 to ?:T,- t:.i.:i.t t'.:-.c:ro .is 00:.1ntclo:.:a·:;10 i10:i[;ht in tllio -,:ir, ;1..i.mortt c\S 0 t;_':o::ro lTuG l1Q offg,~ t~ :3<-ltisf~:i.ctorD:·· _:L~~'-'-tt tho ·:i.~~::;,ond.ont•s ,.,fo;'OMid a .~,soo:rtion. :a, the lij.1~ O:t t)10 f'O:i.'O,jOL1.C·:, ::: shudder. to Sc;l:_)4 t:;~(.-J. 'tll~ ~ , " 1 .'~ ...,r.;:ul10j,1' j.a ·i!liaoonoaivod. : I ..:i.iil fo:.?ti:i:'iod in this vio·u ill. t~ ·Ur.ht -~ of the O.OQilSiOll .•hi a.n -~l1glfob. MSC, ;r.':.ig;:,. is• C>f ;porS1."!.COi"9 V,ll,1..0, of .TIIil-~J;l 'iJ 'r:i:m:Jl:l ( 1~7fl) :c .1,fr :J. !.t 540. T:.10 Gelid o~a0 .w~s -S..:';cd. ".ri.th · ~~~al 1 :.cn1d. i:1 f-.:.1ct fol101-1od, :i.:1 t;:o c:10.J of 14.lel {1971) :8• .:.,.. 278· :lt :PGe' 2s1·· ·,,tncr- ~n2~ ._. In tb.0- TJ:;TICfrt I s Cu:JC ( snpra) thci 1;,p:-Jl:i.Oul'l.t h,:.d P1?-t tlic hO"J.Se in ~.:io rospcndo::t•s :,ur.1::i to ·~1void. ~~dj:.tQrs._ · ,:t· ,-ras hold tu.at t210 ]TL'OSt.:)llpt:iA,n. thilt; ':i,:i::.10pertt '!fi.;S oo~M tt, t~1C wife fo;;: bar OW1'l USG I . ~,rr:i.s not rc:,u:tted i13~ t;__..o h1.'.:;fb..1:1ePo oviclo:'.oJ t.:"""lt it 'mlS oonvoyod to defeat his crocii tors •. In t: ·.O I1 ~ C:.lSC ( S1..'.j?I'il.) t::.o llcus9 i'Tc'.S OO!!Vp3"8d ( acco:ro.ing to t>.:) llt.ts1i,l;.1d} to av-<;iid. doath d·diGs 0.."1. b.if,j doc1.t£l. I I 4 - The court in l!E, case (supra) help., irtteralia, that the wife.1-re.s certainly benefi~~allr entitled to one half thereof. In the instant case, the appellant has been :p3:rsisent and ' . consistent in her assertion·. thut the house in question was gi~n to her as a gift. The question that· posos immediately ::for . consideration . , and decision . is whether or not there has been evidence on record to support; •· .,~. and . justify the ap~_ilant I s·· a:ssertion th.at.- she was· . (P.ven the house l\B . a _gift and hence. . it is for her own . use· t:o -the exclusion· of her . husband. ·,;,. I wish at this juncture t_o malµ3 it amply clear that, as far, a_s ..... I oan gather from the evidence on :rocord., the·. appellant and the.' re,spond.ents •are mosle_ms, The:re c.1n·.tb.cref,ore, I ·.... ,,_... J:,e little dou,bt .. . ; in rrry mind that they , . . . . . both.'profess Isll/n:ic fa_i~h.. The responrl<mt ,therefore,·· «o'coi'dint to· Islamic law, cauld. validl/give .tho apJ;l8ll~nt the hm:wi-:\{~ a' gift. . This·, in Islamio law, is known as "hiba"~· .·(see~ .TUMA G013UKA' 1:1'.AtlMA · . v~ lJ)IIAMliJDI ( 1975) ·L.R.T~ n l~~ild :rus6F :v• .'i1lJNDA (1973) E.4-,,,324 ..to imention ••' ., ' rust a few_. coses). . . . c But, .to stab~isb. . a .. . gi:f t . ( "hiba) there mu.st also be -evidence :t·o show .. ,- . . ... • • • ' 'o ~ • In the instant case, having i~gard t'o th0 afore. stated' :re~pbndent 1 s :rebuttal, I have cons.idorable diffiou1ty in the_. accepting appellant's, .assertion tluit she is' tne a bsolutc ~ r of. the h~-.:-,·. .. ~- ,. , .. . ~ . ' : - ~ ·:. .,•_,,.~ ' . ' . . ' '. ~ . . ... On a sobber and proper _analy:~is, of the evidence of this· case, as I have, hopeMl;r.:woil. dc.mo.nstrctod :tn my judgm3iit,• the··te·~iJ.t/ husband has. more. than· a~ply re b1,1~tcd t~- ~:res~ption t~t ·the. a~:PEiliant/ wi:fe was given the-house as a gi:f't. He has also· xebu.tted. the presumption that tbs h ~ . belong13 absolu:tcly to her {appellant/wife) to·the exclusion ~ ·her. S;PC_~•· .. (llere the _pr~~ions of B8_otio:1S 61 &n:I. 60 (a}:-.Of. the law • .;, •. ~-?.- of Ma~ia~ (A,ot irp:5/71) ·xes~6_tivoly ~ appl-i~'ble) • . In view,,6f. t.~e ·torogoing 9 I l· (l3ten to· say that the liotise·· in 'cl:i.spu.te is a matriJ!loma~ af3f;let 'rithin. tho ~aning .of •:tho:: ~rriage Aot· (i:rupra). It: is· 11\}'"~8¢\ttled ~ . ~o~t; ' . ·caild;i.d view. . th4t.-- t;'_ ho1d otherwis~ wiil b3 a } travesity of-· justi°':·i:il.'ld . . i,. ' an offenco to.. ·.. all canor.i• ,.·.,: ':._ "of fairness. •. ' . . · ..In tho. rel3Ult, tho a;pppal must ·suo.oeed t; :t~mt limited ~xtent· ohly. :Parties:'.to p0P.~,}h~j:r.:_.9jn1 cost13•~·}>rde.~_ a~~~~_\_<'-·. · ·. • f # • .. .-·:·:,.·: . ··~ ~:.. ,. _:,..,... J;"J. MK!TAWA•. J', ..~~-· ·· · · 26/7/91( - 5 .. Co~;,-·- .· The District . . Magistrate . Lindi to SUllllllon the parties ard oommunioate the decision of this appeal to thaw., upon certification of- / the samee ,:--f{;} - _ _] ./ I ·_: ✓(_,- ,,.._.1 ;:: •. -- , , , J.'>J• lvII{WA~ JlIDGE.-·- ,16/7/94 \.