19730815 TZHC Dodoma
There was no evidence of a legal marriage between the appellant and Moses; gifts given were penalties, not dowry, and the appellant cannot be forced to marry. The trial court's decision was correct and should be restored.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19730815 TZHC Dodoma
- Parties
- Appellant: Naitishilayoki Singeen; Respondent: Singeen Kinaimurua
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 15 August 1973
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Forced Marriage, Child Custody, Parental Rights
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Naitishilayoki Singeen
Appellant
Singeen Kinaimurua
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant could be forced by her father to marry the man who impregnated her
- 2 Whether a legal marriage had taken place between the appellant and Moses
- 3 Who should have custody of the child
Ratio Decidendi
There was no evidence of a legal marriage between the appellant and Moses; gifts given were penalties, not dowry, and the appellant cannot be forced to marry. The trial court's decision was correct and should be restored.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Judgment of the Primary Court restored
- Custody of the child to remain with the appellant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF TALZANIA ç •.- AT ARUSHA \-.--- (PC) CIVIL APPEAL 1O 50 OF 1973 \ (From the decision of the District ur orusha at Arusha in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1972). NAITISHILAYOKI SINGEEN ............ . APPELLANT (Original Respondent) versus SINGEEN KINAIMURUA ................. ...,. RESPONDENT (Original Appellant) JUDGJVNT The appellant became pregnant out of wedlock and gave birth to a child. The respondent, her father, tried to force her to marry the man who made her pregnant. She asked the court to declare that her father could not force her to marry. The Primary Court made a declaration in her favour and further ordered that she should retain custody of the child. Her father appealed to the District. Court and the learned magistrate held that an agreement had been reached between the parents of the present appellant and Moses, the father of the child 9 and he could not understand why the appellant should refuse to marry. He said that it was a stright forward case that the appellant is the wife of Moses. He reversed the decision of the Primary Court. he assessors at the trial found that gifts of pombe and a cow and goat made to the respondent were only a penalty for making the appellant pregnant and were not dowry. While theDe was evidence that the appellant was forced to go to the boma of the child's r - father it is clear that she ran away. There was nothing to prove that a legal marriage had taken place. The district magistrate was not consistent when he found that the appellant refused to marry and that she was the wife of Moses. He showed no grounds for interfering with the judgment of the trial court. I will accordingly allow the appeal with costs S. and restore the judgnt of the Primary Court. The custody of the child shall be in the appellant as ordered. ARUSRA 15/8/73 (C. E. BRAMBLE) JUDGE, / -.-L--