19950202 TZHC Dar es Salaam

,J, IN· 'lHE HIGH CaJRT OF 'l'.'AJ.IJ-ZANIA ~D.ARE3S~ CIVIL .APPE.6L NO. 70 OF 1994 i;:;EL.TuE.&.-f"i ~HitJ:PUiifGU' • ., •• • o. o •• ., o ., • aAPPELLANT VEF.St:S VUMILIA. .MlilIPU:TGU e,. • • e • • • • • •• o o eRESPON.DiiINT Vumilia Flaji also forb'.:lrly lmown as Mwaipurigu. had. :poti tionod for a. divorce at Kisutu Dlstrict Court.,. 'Iha mattor Waf.3 hea:i:-d boforo Lyamuya • i'lm on 23/11/r;3 rlhoro she made tho order for the matter to bo rofc::'rod baak to tho Marriage Concilia.tion :Board under s. 1.1,__(-2) of' Law of Marriage Act. 'lho trial Ma.3~_,_..;-.r:0,i:r.3 adjournod--~this caiso· for a period of furoo month.so 'lb.on on 2/5/94 tho :po-~itionor ap:poa.rod before tho courts wi. th Mrs Lyariru.ya - PRM • prosiaingo 1Ihoro is nothing on record to indicate tho p:rosonco or otb.orwiso of tho respondent. In fact tho hearing proceeded as if it w&:i an oxpartc . __ . LJr:.r:L:.1c.-. :!J.o short :procoodings on that c.ay can oo r~:-:-·:·'..:- -_ .:..·· u:~:Q~:c.l: 2/5/94 Coram& .A.T.C" Lyar:ru;ra - PRM Petitioner - Present and statos ihat tbc reconciliation board haJ3 fa.ilecl its duty vide tb.is lotter and t~o rcspondon-[; ha,'3 remarried an1 cares loss for no I :..:.2-Yo noted with disa:ppointo.ont how tho M:i.rria.go Rcconc:iJ.iation :_' ·r:.,c--.,,. •-'·f·4, ... , ·! _,,f-.- ):-: .... ··~c-v--, Bor-i.,.,dm·~suna'J.,...'3· C::!,.I. I . . - ! ..,-i 1·0e:-"l ..rp i. ... ~ ....... .... -•• of ·.)A/i-i/o; '-•..C.- ,J... Eo lJO • (,:,) - of liot 5/ 71 Ma.rria.go .Act.. 'lb.a Rospona.or~-t haf3 roraa;rTied ant cares loE □ fa~ tbo potitioner lo J.ri tho abovo oiromstanccs I declare tho Hn;rI i3g0 haJ;J broken down beyond repair honcc I grant a.\..._/. -diY.G]'.',JO , 2o 'lhoUgh tho va.luo of tho tiatrimonial assets is not known tho S8)"J.O to bo divided equally • oo . . 1 . I 3o 'Jbo respondent to na.untain tho potitiomr @ 10:,000/c por Donth w"o""f" Fobrua;ry, 199.2 ·i-ihon tho Ros:pondont abandonncd · iho pc-i:i i;iomr 4o. Tho respondent to notify l': '.' ·· :~lliwin8 that decision, the :respondent Selemani Mwaipungu tb.roueh. ··'· his advocate Mro Mwakasur1Qlle · fil~d a· chamb~r summons und0r Ord.er ~9 · Rules 5 (1) (3) and (4) for orders to stay execution pendinG heaxins of application :tn-!ier parties. The affidavit of the respondent was read out in support of the application.· Tho thrust of this application ·was tlw.t the Ruling of Lyamu.ya - PP.N was errenous as the matter was heard expa.1·te and he was not given a chance to reply to petitioners submission when tho matter was hoard on 2/5/94. Mr. Mwalcasungulc therefore filed the application for extension of time within nhich to file an application to sot a side an oxparto order and decree elated 2nd Map 1994.• This application was rejected by Mrs. Kimaro - PRM on 12/8/94 hcnco'this'appoal, Mr. Mwakasungul~ attacked tho Il.uling of 12/8/94 on several graound.s. When sum.marised their effect is to say that the respondent was not servod to attond. court on that day and uhotovcr was said by -the petitioner then could not be l'o:pliod to and what tho poti tio11cr saiti grcatljr influenced tho decision of tho trial Magistrate. Ronco ]'Ir. Mwalr..asunB'l.llo prayed for the setting a side of tho Jluline of tho trial court of 2/5/94 and tho matter be hoa.rd donow in tho presence of his client. I I have road the court proceedings of 2/5/94 and. note with dissatcsfactio11 that on record tho rcsponclont docs not appear to have l)oen scrvod.e Jndood when tho judgment was delivered on 23/11/93 both patios wore present. Tho matter was then adjourned for a period of throe mont_hs to allow .i;iai·:t;ics to bo reconciled if at a:1.1. When tho hearing resumed on 2/5/94 it was expected that 1)oth parties would p;;~osont themselves ·to toll tho court what has transpired in that pc·riod. It was not to 1Jo, only tl'lO· .J.N ,.,,.,t·t· d 1 ioncr a11:poa1·O and [.s'a-Vc her evidence. It in not on record whether tho respondent w<:.:1 served a.11d if so why ho did not put an appearance. I cannot but agroo with loarnod counsel that -the t:1:in.l court proceeded to grant tho divorce without according the :resvo21c~c11t an opo:rteni ty of 1Jcing heardo Similarly tho Ruling by lJrs. Kimaro - P.lli"\1 is in my mind rather con.fu.sod& Sha says in parts"':" ,; this moans th2.t · tl.l.o parties haci"1'6..:. ~.:-~cport ·b2ck to tho Magistrate after throe months• .... 3 . I What Mrs Lyamuya did on 2/5/94 waa only to conclude her judgment dated Wll/94 ( it should read 23/11/9:; ). I'will also add that the ort.10r by Mrs. Lyamuya .. PBM can:aot be said to_ have been issued expa:rte. 'lhe trial waa conducted in the presence of both partiestt All were present tb.roughlmt th0 trialu• 'Jhe application by_ Mro Muaka,sungu.J.e :L9 a m;.sconceptiono It is the ref ore dismiss0 d ui th cos ts o O o 11 With much respect I wish to ciffer uitb. the learned Magistrate. In nzy- view the order by Lyamuya - PRM on 2/ s/94 waa made cxpa.rto aa tho _respondent waa not present. Ronco he could not ha:r..re boon present throughout tho trial. I would thoroforc allow tho appeal and grant tho preyilrs by tho appellant" This matter be fint.lisod bofors ano-thor Magistrate and each party to bo£1X own cosw. i- - ,} . r . -· -/\ ~ - j \ (_t:: ~-i( '-..•'' A.:.Gt1 BUJ3ESHI JUroE 2/2/1995 Judgment road in prosonoo of Applicant Prosont .Rospor;i,dont - Present.