19940329 TZHC Dodoma
The appellant sued the wrong party, as the respondent was not the heir to the deceased's estate. The proper party to sue for refund of bride price is the heir, identified as Steven s/o Fumbi.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19940329 TZHC Dodoma
- Parties
- Appellant: Mlandu Mwingo; Respondent: Motokya s/o Fumbi; Third Party (heir): Steven s/o Fumbi
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 29 March 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Bride Price Refund, Proper Party to Sue, Succession
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mlandu Mwingo
Appellant
Motokya s/o Fumbi
Respondent
Steven s/o Fumbi
Third Party (heir)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant sued the correct party for refund of bride price
- 2 Whether the respondent was the heir to the deceased's estate
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant sued the wrong party, as the respondent was not the heir to the deceased's estate. The proper party to sue for refund of bride price is the heir, identified as Steven s/o Fumbi.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appellant at liberty to file a fresh suit against Steven s/o Fumbi for refund of bride price
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN 'JlID HIGH COU.:l'l' OF Tl.NZLI.Nll J,J. :og__~~~ (re) CIVIL .4.r1:d:i no. 22 OF 1993 (F.i:oo. tb,c. dcc:laion o-£ tho· Ii.iat:... iot Court of Do<Wma a-t Dod.OJll[;. 0 Civil-.lr-~·?,~:·; .::o. 85/ 1992 ncfero O.,.'l.. U.rasa Esq., Scn.ior Distxiot r.1%istra.te MLlJID' IJm:rIYiffGO • ... • J.,PI'IiIT.:L.lNT J U D G M]} :U T t.FTli.IUSLNY~ T'. .-v, c,pJX;~ ~ s/o .LoxiJ.:iyi,,,.ingo successfully suod the. respondent. Mo;tot~y-;:,, s/ o Fumbj_ ~t tllo U:i.:".xi.n F:d.m~ Court in llodotw. };.iunicipali-cy- in a claim of refund of b:i:'idep:i:'icc. Tho appellant h~il. claio0d 14 he&ds of oattle ;md four e,oc:c,ts, but tho t:i:'i"-J. cowt awa:i:'dod him seven ho21.Cls of cattle only. Tl1G :ccsponcco~ su,oc:,o.ss:f:'ully a3:.].)calod. to Dodoma. Dis~ict Court which h.oJ.d. th~ -t:ic a:;xpoll.:tnt had su.cc1 the 11Tong pEJ.rty -who was not tho heir to the ostc..to of th.oir d.c.coased 1s father 1-l..o.o ho.cl ~c.ceived. the 'brideJ:L:ioo.. .G..~iovod. 'by that c1.ocision tho o,ppcllu.nt ho..s now appoal~ to this OO'lll't. It '.{C..S ooD.1JJon ;:::;..·ouncl at t'.10 tricl that tho fc,t2:-.GJ'.'--'-in-la.w who received the t:.:-j.de:prioe N.o:-. Funici s/ r, Lonabi is d.oa.d. Tho a}_):pollant sued the rospondcl:rt ·who is ono of fao sons of the doccs.sed. Tho respondent arcu.ed at the trial timt he is not t:'10 h3U' to tho ostatG of tb.ci:i: docoased• s f&,thor and so ho S:.1ould not have 'boon sued" li.t tho I1oarin(5 of this e.ppeaJ., the appellant concoded that tho heir to tho estate of tb.c deceased is one hr,. Stevon s/ FvL1'lJi• :_..Tb.at boinc tho Cc,sc tho District Cowt was correct f!'J to hold that the O.J::,J;>Gllant had sued the ,D..,onc; party. Re S::i.o1.-i.J.d he,vc sued Mr. Steven s/ o Fur.11::i for the clam o:f :.:of'und of 1xridoprico n:nd not tho respondent. '.L: ·iLo event ~:.,c "'~- ~: c~l ..? .::,::..l;,:; ..:·,,;,,.J. it is -..::.isr.;i.s::mcL ~:-i t:1 costs., T!10 c,~~pc 1.lc.nt is ,'.",t li".;orty to :':'.i2.o -e~o S1-i.i t _-- , c:.ir...s-t l ..'1, St..,vo,;:1 s/ o fu.:ibi. Ord.or e.ccordinc·l;,;- ~ .. -----· \ •( j LO L' :,:_:_fr.,.:.irii) .··:---- O au~ IC 2:; o3 o 1:9L~ cb.t,nl~o=-s c..t Dodor.1::1 in tl,c ]_)j:oso:1.00 of