19920928 TZHC Tabora
- Citation
- 19920928 TZHC Tabora
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 September 1992
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 September 1992
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellant's abandonment of his wife and child at the respondent's house was established as a fact by both lower courts, justifying a cause of action for refund of maintenance expenses under customary law. However, the quantum awarded was not strictly proved and must be reduced to a nominal amount.
Court disposition
Appeal partly allowed
Orders
- Quantum of award reduced to Shs 30,000/=
02
Material facts
Parties
Ramadhani s/o Buhombo
AppellantInamu s/o Jilala
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Original Award: Shs 72,000
- Reduced Award: Shs 30,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant is liable to refund maintenance expenses incurred by the respondent for the appellant's wife and child
- 02
Whether the quantum of the award was properly determined
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant challenged the finding of liability and the quantum of the maintenance refund awarded by the lower courts.
- Respondent
- The respondent claimed reimbursement for expenses incurred in maintaining the appellant's wife and child, who were allegedly abandoned at his house.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Local customary law as recognized by the court
Customary law supports a cause of action for refund of maintenance expenses where a father-in-law incurs unnecessary expenses due to abandonment by the husband.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellant's abandonment of his wife and child at the respondent's house was established as a fact by both lower courts, justifying a cause of action for refund of maintenance expenses under customary law. However, the quantum awarded was not strictly proved and must be reduced to a nominal amount.
Obiter and limits
- The respondent must have benefited from the wife's labor, which should mitigate the quantum of the award.
- The regularity and authenticity of the claimed expenses were not established.
Court disposition
Appeal partly allowed
- Quantum of award reduced to Shs 30,000/=
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 28 September 1992
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 28 September 1992
/ (PC) ']IVIL ~lPP:ilil. no. 52 0:B' 1991 ( Original Civil Cas.:, lfoe 15/ 91 of'. Igurubi Primary Court c1'Jd. Civil ~~:opeal }Jo. 17/ 91 of Igunga District Court} V:J·RSUS ------ JUDOMTill CL~.Jlf: Child a.nd wifG :mcintanance refund - 3hs. 72,000/t=.e The appellant rT3 1 rn::i11.rli1. s/o l3uhombo 1 was success_fully sued by the r-esponc~011t :r.na..um..:. s/o JIL.'..L.~, before Igu.rubi Primary Court,. for a refund of SJ.ls. 72,000/ =, that the respondent clciL'11od.ly used, in mnintaining the ap:;;iellant' s wife; 2,wl one child. over a-.. pci':i.od of three years,. when the appellant !1ad a.llegcii.ly a.b2.nd.?~ed th.€:m; a.t t~:0 res_poniants house. The Pl"imary Court vw:::-nimously-; rmc1 t:10 District Court cnio.:rsed that, the respondent had a cause of action, ancl concui•rcntly Allowed tl-;.o claimed amount, and hence That the appollnnt, had irresponsibly abandoned his wife and child,. at th0 house of the :ros::;>onc:1.ent, is a finding of fact,· that found concurrent su11porl by the t\:o lower courts, and I om not disposed to interfere· ltl th the same. That tb.0 cus-lio:11ary law, of t:::i.8 place su:pports such a cause of action, whore and ~1hcn, tl:o respondent as a fathe~in-law is by roason thci'Oof, put to unnocassar-.1 expenses which has to l)e refunded, is on the evidence undoubtable. llowover what woi·i':i.cs me, is· the amou.11.t clained, a1'ld awa.:rtled
by the trial court, and. upheld 1)y t_he :District ·Com·t. If wo :have. to consider . . 11 11 Jx.bibit .1 , which is tl:0 basis of the quantwa, we shall find, it unr~alistio1 it reads:- . ' 2 JlH[..~ Y.~ GILi.lt.'J,11 :m.:..1c.. 1aT;i.'IU 10,000/~@ Sbs 30,000/= 9,000/-d§l Shs 27,000/= 3.:i ·ILL .I.:.,.:.:.J:U 5,000/d§J Shs.15,000/... 24,000/.,., · 12,000/=. With res~cct, none cf t:1os2 figures, was authenticated in any details, showin~ what typo of :foo:1..1 ty-;_)0 of clothes :::tnd which treatment. While ·WE>· conccd.e tfaat tho arpoJ.lc:.nt' s id.fe a:1<1 c!:..ild1 must haw ea.ton d·uring that period, tl.le o:,,?c:-:-.~.itu:i."'O if any, could. not haw raaintsinod such reg_ula- l'i ty of q_ID:ntin. Fv.rtl~.~:r, -th0:appella11ts wife activo am. kicking, as ',.,, ~0S}.)oncl en.t s 11omc, ;:;rte'•. a11 ~Df:)J.llG s b.0 1,~s., a,.t . -c~~e • · peasa11·t s, wz.s no...;i, •b·,.; ·n - . _,. 't~.:--0 spoonf0d. lier own conti"i~mtion of labou:r should hc,w mit;ig:ii.ted th0 position. Sh.e·r,n,st 1,:1 ..,.,, 00""'. 1,•·o••l:--i··.' t·~; l.,J.L. ,.,..,,,.,.,1•"' -"',-~ ·,--·r· .. }.• '.. ,:..e:r _ · .t.~ t .l.-. 0 1·.·1 ,'ld , -ancl 1·,o _._yv .UL\,;,, .l-;.-....,..1;..;_, V.L-' 'I '···' •i .L •,• ,k.,,'w...,.,;;,11;;., ~.i.J. 1·espond,pnt _nust have p0;.:cfit0d t~1oicby, a cirow:i~ta.:i.1ce which must hf.We been take:1 into a-cco1.111t, incor::.:;iclotj.ng the qwlntun. _ It follows
therofore:, that ' ,:' ' cl t;1ou/j.l the raappnclcnt hz.d. a c~us,' '.)f: action, th0 quantum awardoc?.a.blo, unless st:t'ictlJ7 :i;,:;.•ovcrl, must in t:w ci;.'(..U.1:st.::,ncos bo bo:rdcring t!1e no:rmina-1. I tllcrcfoxo reduce the ,2mor.nt to Shs 30,000/=• Tho appeal is tho~cfore partly allowed, to tho o.::tcnt s}J.own• •,•. Jlo KlTITI, ~,. , l 2~J~9. 1992 -- Om>:ra., T1Jr°l.g, ...0,.£L GO '.Y' :,o:i;ifi.(•c-:. .Z0r deli w_~,. by the District Com't. ."
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.