19820916 TZHC Dar es Salaam

D:T T.L.J!,; ::::IGi: COIDT Of:' T1JT~TIL.. ) l.T D.t'iJ.7. :ES SAL!JJll • (PC) NA'ffiD[O!Tili.L li.PPmt l10.2(b) OF 1902 (From o:riginnl Civil Appeal lfo.49 of 1981 of tho District Court of Mbillec on o.ppcrnl from Civil Cc'.'..sc Ifo.159 of :1981 of tho Primc.,ry ' Co'\ll't Litembo),, CJJI1ISTIH.ll. KOl-IDh. •. • • •. • , • • " • • , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 • • • • , • , • • • • • • • JJ>P!LLtJllT. versus VlANEY WilIDIHilJO • .rr• •• • •, ... , • ·• • •, •. ". •. • •• • •. •. • .'. , • • •,, • • • .-.nESPOl'TDEN'T Dl.IIl1.TI1 J • This a1T.QoaJ. will be disposoc.1 of 011 the point of lmr only because tho avidonoo is very oloa:r enc!. it is to tho d'foot that tho rospondo1,\t I. is :t;he fataor of tho child whoso ousJi;ocly is being oontoatcd by the · appellant. Tho oonourront fincli;ngs of fa.ct of thG lower oourts cannot be faulted in view of tho oviclenoc in Jchis case,. Mr., Re;ithath..-i.t 1oo:rned counsel for the appellant c.1.ic1. -not touch on tho ovidonoc. Ind.God he sort of WDltc1.onod tho grounds of appeal drawn by tho appcllc.nt.. Ths., thrust of Mr .. Iln.ithatha 1 s ~f.-'UlUOl'l.t wa~ on tho ttw~lfaro of tho ohilf'l" prinoipl.o in daoiding who shoulcl get custody of tho child. Tha ohilcl is 12 yoars olcl ~cording to the ov:i.donoo ,and whon I aakod her the n~o of her. f a.thor. ai.lo said. thc,.t it vms Snlivius Kamb~ tho preseht husb021C1. of hc::r, mothor, . I run not surprisoc1,. Jiihat "'iiho child. tltw·1.ks -tip.at her ~i:•.;llior is Saliviua Kombe. ?-'.fl.... Rr-.t thatha roi'erred mo to sootion . 125( 2) of tho ic,1·r of ~iagc Act., r,t,, ooneiderod OlJilrl.on is tho.t tho custocly of ~ ohi1cl is nomallJ" ~i.vm1. to tho fn.thor o:l tho child unless there aro rc~so11.S mill tating ngrol1:tt suoh o.n action heil'lg' taken. Sootion 125(2) and (3) cloru. -with the welf~o principle vary oloa:rlya It statoss s.125(2) "In cl00:i.lli.1,e in whoso oustocl;y m1. inf ant shoulc.1 be pln.cod -'cho pc.raJ.!lount 001tsidora.tion shall, bo tho irolfaro of tho infant ana., su.bjoot to this, tho oo-urt shn.11 ha.Vo ·rog['.l'd- ( a) to tho wishes o:f! tho pC1ronts of tho intantJ and (1J) to ~o wishos of tho inf'nnt, whore ho or sho is of an ago to ccr.:J,JJ:oss an indcpendGnt opinion, and (..,Q,) to the customs of the Cornmuni~ to which tho po:rtios bol01v;,.. (cl) There shall bo a robutta.blo presumption that it is for the good of an il'l.fa.nt below tho ago of scvon yon:rs. to be with his or hor mother 1)Ut in clcoidinG" whether -'chat 1xrcsump~ion applies to the fn.ots of any p~ticu1.or ca.so,. tho o-ourt shcl.1 hr;ve roga.rd to th<> . 2/-. •••• : 2 uiuk:~abili ty of c1-isJliLTbing tho lif'G of DJl • Want by changes of oustoey" 11 l'Tow, applying ·fao ti:IJOVO principle to this on.so, i £in.cl t;:i.at ona of tho pc.rents wr,ni;s oustoc'ly of tho clu.lcl while tho othor 0110 a.lso wonts custs:,ey• Tho pe.ragre,ph ooncerning tho wishes of tho parents docs- not holp us in this case• As for pe:r11<;,-Taph (6) of subsection (2) of soction 125 1 it was quito clon:r that ~10 wishes of tho cbilc. who is now 12 yo<'.J:S ru,.d chlG to oxpross ru:,. independent _opinion, a:ro that sho woulcl rather romcl.11 in tho custody of her mother cnc.1. stop f n.thor whom she hn.s boon ta;ueht to believe to be b.or . real fatl1er t Thon there is PGXu(;,'"l:'2,ph ( o) clonli.J.1g wit;.1 tho customs of tho cor.u:nunity to which the parties bolong. Thero is no doubt that tJ.io customs of tho communi 1zy' to which tho pa:rtios belong n:rc to tl10 effect that tho ; . . f~thor should h .-,;vo . oustoc1;y of the chilcl and ho docs thc.-,,t lJy first legitirai~ tho chilcl by pcyment of money to the parents of the LlOthar of tho chilc1. Govcrnmont notioe No .279 of 28/6/63 is tho rolovc.nt l~vh Finnlly as to subs.(3) thOJ'.'G is no cloubt that it woul(l bo unc\osir~blo to d.isturb tho life · of tho intent in tllis co.so by' chCllCGS of custody. li.s mentioned rJJovo tho ohilcl is now nhout 12 yoais .old nnd cl.l this timo it hns bGon in tho custody of its motJ.ie:r om stGpfathore Tho child oven holiovos -'i;llat tho stopf~thor .. is her roal fr.tllar, If this court wGro to ordor tb:d; t2:e respondent should bo eiven custody :i.t would in l!\Y' Viow not be in tb.G interest of the child "in the oi.l.'oumst.'.'lloes of this on.so~ Tho chilcl woulc1 thon bo -'i;ak:on by somoono who i's a totnJ. stranger· to her c'l1d she would be kept 1:iy hie ngainst her will in oi1'ounstE'.?l.OOs ~ comp~ahlo to those of o. 1:,risonar-. Tbis G'OUld. wreck hor p,voh.ologioo.lly~ I would therefore hold. thr.,,t although tho ovidonoc ' is vary olcrnr ::1Jout tho pa.tor11ity of the child, 0 oil1G by tho "wolfnro of tho child11 prinoipls 1 I hold that tho custody of the ohilcl should remain w:t th tho oath.or. The respondent is·cort1?.inl.3 entitled to visit thG ohild and tho a.ppollant is l.90qui:rod to naka it possible _for the rosponclant to ha:vo aocoss to tho child undortho pDin of losing oustocy,. But I oan foro-sce tho difficulty whioh tho rcspond.Gnt ney fooo in such axeroisc of hie rights in Viow of tho f'2.0t that the cbilcl has boon nada to balievo that tho stop fathco: i~ hor father .. Tb.is r..ppoal. is therefore allowoc.1.., Dut each p2Z'"cy" will bear thoir own · costs in Vi.ow of tho fact that tho appellant clicl not suoooed on tho grounds conccri'ling- pr..tsrni ty of tho child,.. (_ -~~---- ......... JtIDGE - ·- -~--' 29/12/1980. Court: Juc\r;rac11t c1oliver0d in court in prosonce .of Ur. Uni tha.thn.. .... ···•-"' •-_,;..·,;--··:·:· ~'- ~ ."-- ~_.--c/---·4¥---. ------?' - - { luDJ; TT fL'PI )° \ JlIDQE,. THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF nNZ,\liJIA rn THE HIGH COURT OF T,\Nz;.1n;. AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIVIL CAUSE NO. 38 OF 1982 R.iSHID I1IO.H.'i.MED SISSO f O O • ; • • • • • ..~PPELL,U-JT versus BLi.SR:lli.~ Y,~ \'T.ii.ZEE D 1 S1:..L!i..:1:rvVMZIZil.t'i. CO.LTD. - REJPOIWENT R U L I N G: R\R:i.TI, JlG.J. ( In this nppb.cntion Ivh· .. fu.11tur::i.l:i lcc.rned counsel for t.he respondents hnd n prelininnry point to 1:10.ke. He rnised o. preliminary objection re&o.rdi.ng this npplicc~tion being entertained on the grounds thot the choraber sumr:ions cleo.rly showed thnt tho npplicnntwns claiming full relief in respect of salaries and sitting nllownnces. He submittod th'.:Lt chnmber applications were meont for seeking interim orders whereas here there wns no interim order sought by this applicction. He referred the court to Order 4 Rule 1(1) of the Ci.Vil Procedure Code which sto.tes thnt evory_suit s!mll be institut-ed by presento.ntion of a plc.int to the court. Since there wo.s no plo.int filed here o.nd the relief cln.inoc.1 wn.n not nn interirJ relief, Mr. Jhnturnki submitted that this o.pplicntion wo.s not_proporly before the court nnd it should be rejected with costs. Jn reply th~ o.pplico.nt snid thnt it ·.':o.s n.ot true thnt ho hnd to present o plnint. l,s fnr o.s he understood the lnw to be, o. person files o. chnnbernpplicotion in court nnd the court hears this application. Then the court will order whnt the C\~,plico.nt shoulu do. His claim was. not false and the court should not refuse to hear his o.pplication. The court should do justice. I must sustain this prelininary objection for the following reasons. I agree with thelenrned counsel i'oi· the respondent thnt n full claim cannot be dealt with by wny of' ::m C.J:plico.tion, nncl thnt chamber appli- cations are for interim orders onlyo - 2 - p To begin with vm ho.ve section 22 of the Civil roceC.ure Code which st::: tes: "Every suit sho.11 be institutecl by tJ.,_o pres en to. tion of o. pl::.:l.nt or in such ot~.:er raa.nner a.s rey be proscribec1 11 There is no doubt tho.t the o.pplicc.:i.1jy) s chc:,_1ber o.pplic'.',tion o.nd o.ffida.vit a.re meant to instHute o. suit. If I::1.:i.t the a.pplico.nt meant to bring to court wo.s o. suit then hcshoulc1 ho.vo done so by pr~sent- ing o. plaint o.s envisaged by section 22 o:t' the Civil Procedure Code. Mulla in his book Gode of Civil Procedure 13th edition Volume 1 on pnge 170 defines the word 'suit 1 01°din::'..rily to r.102..r.. o. civil proceeding instituted by a plnint and that n proceeding the; t <loes not commence with o. plo.int is not o. suit. Our Cj_vil Procedure Code docs not prescribe the :fili..'1:<_s of rm o.pplioo.tion o.s another wc.y of instituting a suit. Order IV Rule 1(1) citeq _by learned counsel:~ the- respondent f simply adds to who.tis provided for by section 22 quotod :J.bove with regard to where the pl::iint is to be presented. Then Order 2 Rule 2(1) states tho.t every suit must include the whole clo.:iln VThich the plaintiff is entitled to rmke in respect·, of the co.use of o.ction • ..~ppl~c[ltions on the other hem'. a.re not moo.nt to tnke the plo.ce. of suits. They a.re no.de in the course of' :J. suit to nsk for o, certo.in relief or o.n interir.1 relief but tho;y etre never uscc'. to cl::tir.1 a. relief which is nomnlly clnined throutsh o. suit~ In this co.sc the :J.pplica.tiq:n filed by the o.pplic::mt seeks to 1-x-.ke ci. clnin in respect_ of n co.use of QCtion arising from who.t the Court of ,i.ppenl decided. Indeed the o.pplica.nt here did not cite o.n~- sect:Lon or rule under which this application is brought npnrt from section 95 of theCivil P:i."ocedure Code which ::icction does not on its own confer any : . ·.: · powers on. o.nyone to do or not to do certain things. It W[IS held in Ibssr,,.n Ko.rim & Co. Ltd vs ,\frico. Iraport nnd Export Cuntr~:l Oor1)or:i.tfon Ltcl {1960) E.ii.. 396 at pnge 399 thnt section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code does not independently confer o.ny powers on the court nor o.ny rights to litigants. - 3 This section co.n only be used o.s a.n a.id to poY!ers nlrea.dy prescribed elsewhere in the Civil Procedure Code. Fb.ilure, however, to cite the correct order or rule would not mko the upplicc.tion useless if there is infuct o. section or c:. rule in thc0iVil Procedure Code which gives o. litigant such right to JJ.nko o. cla.in by wo.y of o. cbamber o.pplico.tion. The o.bovo citea ca.se is an authority for this proposition a.swell. For the reasons given above r sustain the prelimina.ry objection. The opplica.tion is hereby rejected with costs. ,\G. JUDGE 16.9.1Q82 16/9/1982 Como: R'"l.hnti, .:\g. Judge For ,\pplicr.mt - present in- person For Respondents: W.1r. funturcki Respondents: present in person. Order: Ruling delivered on 16/9/1982. -~-• ~ -~••••·-M-- ---- l'.. G. JUDGE 16.9.1982