N
The appellant's act of taking away the respondent's wife was unlawful, high-handed, and not supported by proper authority, justifying an award of damages.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- N
- Parties
- Applicant: Shante Hassan Nalpijumedi; Respondent: Hassani Ali Kuhbukwa
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1977
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Damages for Interference With Marriage, Removal of Spouse, Authority to Dissolve Marriage
- 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
Shante Hassan Nalpijumedi
Applicant
Hassani Ali Kuhbukwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was liable for damages for taking away the respondent's wife
- 2 Whether the appellant acted lawfully in removing the respondent's wife based on his brother's instructions
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's act of taking away the respondent's wife was unlawful, high-handed, and not supported by proper authority, justifying an award of damages.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellant to pay damages to respondent as previously awarded by lower courts
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
, !f/c ½ISC. ClVIL APPLICATION N6~1/81 ORIGIN,-,_L Cl VIL C,,,St:: Noo 10 OF 1980 OF i'iHiGUYU PRiliARY COURT AND LINDI DI~TRICT COU~T CIVIL APP~AL No; 11 OF 1980 SHA1''.TE I-i,\::iSAhl NALPi::JJlEDI. - Ai'I:-'LICANT • versus HASSANI ALI hKUHBUKWA RESPONDENT •.. ,.,_,_ ....U .J _____ D G M E _... ,_..,.._,. N T MSUMI, Jo This is sc~cond appE.,al originating frdm primary ·coutto The .first appeal in the dis~rict court was dismissed. In the primary ·~ourt ,· ·respondent claj_med Shs. 2, 000/ = against· the appellant as damages arising from the act of the appellant of taking away respondent's w.tfe. There is clear· ev:;_dence that on· 13/11/77 appellant went to the house of the respondent und ordered his wife to leave with him. Since then ,she' had not returned. Before that, in June, 1977 respondent was callf.,d by his father-in-law to a meeting which was attended by, among ofhers, the appellant. It is in evidence that app-ellant and the father-in-law of the respondent are brotherso At that meeting ·the father-in-i~w expressed ·his disapproval of the marriage between his daughter and.the respondent. He said since he did not authorii~ that marriage, he was riot recognising it. Respondent was given time to sort out with one Ahmadi Mzee who was the step £ather of the respondent's wife and who it is said £0 be 'the one who authorised the marriage in dispute. , 1· After the appellant had tciken away the wife of the' respondeni, respondent lodged a complaint to the· Reconciliation Board. When he was summoned to the Board, appellant asserted that he was sent by his brother, presumably respondent's· father in-law, to .take the wife of the respondent from him. But on being questioned whether he had a written permit authorising him to go ~nd collect the respondeht's wife, appell~nt became angry artd this resulted to an abrupt ending of the Board's me~ting. Both the trial prim2.ry court and·the first appellate district court entered judgments for the plaintiff/respondent. With respect both these judgm~nts ar~ f~ultlesso The evidence against the appellarit is weighty. rt appears that appellant went to take away reSp6ndent'i wife as a way of effectin~ his eldet brother's illegal decision that he did:hot recognise the marriage between his-daughter and the respond~nt. To say '◄ the least appellant's act was high-handedness in its extreme form. I~ is fair that appellant should pay for it through his ncfoe or otherwise·. on the other hand I must comn,end respondent's great patience which IU\,bled him to absorb suci: act of extrerne provocation. As a whole 4:his appea:1 .1: