19710111 TZHC Mwanza
The child, being only one year old, should remain with its natural mother for its welfare, and the maintenance payment was not arbitrary but based on consultation.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19710111 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: Nyisabo a/a Toba; Respondent: ICBI d/o ZALBIA DENDLrT
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 11 January 1971
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Child Custody, Maintenance
- 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
Nyisabo a/a Toba
Appellant
ICBI d/o ZALBIA DENDLrT
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether custody of a one-year-old child should be granted to the father or remain with the mother
- 2 Whether the maintenance payment ordered was based on evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The child, being only one year old, should remain with its natural mother for its welfare, and the maintenance payment was not arbitrary but based on consultation.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at 50/-
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
W- 'W W' P"- •- ei %wfrF IF TUE HIGH COUBT CL TJZfdTI. T Ii:/L1TzL !ppe11ate Jurisdiction (bu) CIVIL 1,1EjL iTO, 122 OF 197 0 . (ro the ]ecision of the district court of T.iusona in Civil Appeal To 103 of 1969 before A. B. Luendo Esq.:Iistrict neeistrate - 0ricinal C±vil Case No. 9 of 1969 of Hreue'iiinary court). BYICJLI. TI fl3A . vc:suc iCBI d/o ZALBIA DENDLrT) 7/J / J1XBGI.UcT ' •' / I . -BIiTDY, In this suit, the appellant Nyisabo a/a Toba was appealii; against thedecision of the diatrict cct of aoua 9 which disnbsood his appeal from the decision of the prinary court of Borerae. In te prinary court, the appellant ,'ba divorced the resposo sued for ch custody of the chile of narriano. Tho respondent was prepared tohanc1 over the baby to the appellant, but the baby wan than only l ycants old. AS there was no issue for vthiCh evidnce was roll. the trial uistrate ordered the baby to reuain with its nother, directed that the appellant should pay about E320/- per uith towards the aaintenice of the child. The appellant was dissatisfied. In disuissiri he appeal, the learned naristrato held, that the baby was too younL, to be taken away fron its nothor and that the welfare of the chiJd required that the child should reucin in custody of the respondent, and he confined both orders In his nenorandun of appeal, the appellant said that the two lower court decisions were erroneous in that he was capable of uaint:nan S his ehild' in that his own, nothor would look after it, and that the order of payriat of .20/- was based on no evidcncc decisions of the lower courts ax. sound. I think the Althouh the appellart t o could have ikoked after the baby, she was no proper substitute for ito natural uothr The child is too you to be taken away fron its raotiior. I sLe no reason to differ on this issue The assessuent of payucnt for ifiaintenance was fixed after anents and csultation theref ore it was not as arbitrary as he thoubiat The a, pollant did not appear durint the hoarmn of this appcn,l The respondet appeared and supported the decicion of the lower court0 0Ah2:- This appeal is disraisseci with costs fixod at .50/-. / (z. . El-dy) ll/]17l. ACTING JUBGE