19811117 TZHC Dodoma

Versus ' • ·. • • r ~ • •• • •... •:.•:I .. ... ' ZA tlt[BU '-~iWAN GHUI o .• .• 1.: ', . . .. . .. - . • .) • . , •.., . 1RESPONDENT ::.~ .. , ' . ~- . ""·.,!-. -~- :··: :'' !. '. (Or, igine, 1 )?eti;!iioner)' !' - ·.: • .·-·(! ·: · .._,,,1: .,. •is,,:·,.:\.~,·:•· -::,.·:,/' .·\,.~·•·.,, . :' ·r •.~ ....! . ~ , .-,.---,.........-----------------""" : I, •• I .. : i· . ·:.. · . •.1v.t-.r '."' ·. J .U D .G:M=·E N T·- . •.. ·:-1,j :·.::,-,:Mairi~!; le~. . . ·. . . . :. •·L ;.i' ~ /'_::: Mkiru Ki'Jiu is' ap·pealing ~~in8t t}?-~: :deq-ision of ,·thei . Mtinko ·;Pr.i:ma.ry-· c:6urt \~hicn <iissolv:ed th~ :l}la.:rriii'ge betweed···, .r . . · ' ' •~rt1 ·--~ ":I . •' • ;·::~. ) ;~ ,• ._ .. ' - .. the 1;1ppel1a·nt and' his; wife Zainabu .M~-r~n~ui-.- ·.- ;:_r--,-•1:• 1-1-~· '. · · 1 ' ( ~-: ·-:-: . ' ; ·. ·_ : ~ . :· ;_ . i .l~' - .• •. . '•• .J .' • .. In her evidence before the, trial Y.·ourt., t:P.e. fespbndent · . t1 . I' ·. · · · ~ ', · • · . Zainabu ~a.nghui: who was the petitioner a~ :the. trial,,al;leged th~-t.- her husband·;·:'.the app•eila.nt. had dese_rt~·d. her for many<,-_· · . ' . .. ·'· ., . . i•· <··: i_,'" Tl ! years.. and she had to live with her parents,·. ~he Jlespondent •• • • • l • ~ • t00 a;l,le,ged tha:t· 'she had been ·assaulted -by the ,appe.llant and • ; • I • •• ' • • compla,ined 6f-. w:tJ.;ful negl.e·ct by'., the j,ppeila~t. . On his ~ · . ' ;'/ • -~ ~

i, • r • • • I :•• , : •. , • ' • par.t.,. the· appe-1:l!ant said that. the··'rospor,i.deni h~d l~f:t· the .:, ; ,: . m~ir.i~onia:l home for no lawful r~a:~-0~ ·and when he went _to ask her to :r~turn hon;ie,.,_.,.:th~ respondent refused. The two wi1;nE3_-:_: sses;:·~alie_d by th~ respondent ailegcd ·that ·the respori.d~~t- l?-8:4.: . . . . . refti.stia:' to return to the matrimonial home because of alleged assault and neglect by the appellant ~nd that the appellant demanded immediate refund of the 'brid'.~wealth he had paid. The primary court dissolved tho.-\mai~i~ge on the ground that the parties had been quarrelling ii°ince 1976 and that the appellant was insisting on the·-;~ro.fund of bridewealth. With respect to the primary court, the provisions of section 101 of the Ia.w of Marriage Act were not complieg. ·_:wit 1~ . Any party wishing to petition for divorce or any othe~-:r _,\ ·,· matrimonial cause must first refer the matt~r to a marriage.;. , - .:· ~i- ;;': ',i . .. conciliatory board and obtain from _the board a certificate to the effect that the board had failed to reconcile the parties. There is no such certificate in tho record of this petition and neither did any of the parties adduce evidence of seeing .•.. /2 - 2 - such a certific~te issued •. The Prinary court therefore could not entertain the.petition without suchoer.t.ificate • . There is another matter •.

'·llter the potitioner1 the res- pondent and the petitioner's witnesc JS had given evidenc.e, the appellant, who was the r~sporidert at· the trial, informed the trial court tha-t he wish~d .to cc.11 tl:,ree witnesses; and the hearing was:"adjourned:·fi'11'·'~2.'7 ~·1978. The record ' ' . of the trial court is silerit(C'.·iJs_:f.o ·rhat transpired .on i! s · · · .··~. . 22.7.1978. However, there J.lS a:- order dated 2.8.1978., made i~_, the a~~e lla~t, \s<a bsenco, to b,d j ourn th.e', ,h~~rihg to 25~'8:1978.. ''No i~'ot·':tce was i;::sued to the appella:nt ,to inform him of the new hearihg 'date~- I-'c is' therefore ~JJe\i~prising' that the appellant did not appear on 25 .8.78. Thi r,rial court thetf p~oceeded to order that judgment would be d<3livered on the fo1lo~1Hk ai1y - in the :;;ppellcmt's absence. Since the appellant wished to call witnesses and since he had not bee,n no.y,?-fied of the hearing date, it was wrong for the . ; . . . trial court to p:roceed witfr '. ,.. .. ,. ..\ ._' . judgment without ,... giving · : an'.: apportunity to, the appellant to call h.=i:s_ witnesses; ·-· ........ ~ •• - •• • •• ¥ -~- - , - . . . Finally it is noted -that the trial court delivered judgment after obtaining . thF, opin-iori of only- one asses.$or. ' Under section 8 of the Magi-:trates Courts Act as .. J=tme·nd:ed::,:. · by Act No. 18 of 1969 both ox- all assessors. who sit

wtth t~~ Magistrate have to be aske,d :fq:{'t-heir ~pinic~~ un~~,s~., they ·had absent~d t~ems~lves 'dur~g •· -:~h~ trial in which case the trial proceeds with the 'rem dning assessor or as.s~ssors; .:--,i" it 'is for. fnese reasons tlJ::it this. appeal ;is, allowed-.: The,. otde'r' :la_:tifsolvin·g tb'.e' \nar'r:fr~f:,G betw~~n the .Parties is. set . : / ;. atB.de /' · ·- - W.J. M.AINA :.::. JUDGE :.:'· .,., ,·/ ,. ;.SINGIDA 17. 11 • 1 981 Both parties present-. · • 1· r