19921119 TZHC Musoma 1

.;. lh IN TED m.GR COL1:IT1 Oii' T:t.NZlJNIA U:WJSOliA •.· PC CIVIL 1.:rrm:J, NO. 199 OF 1991 " (;~peal f'roo ti~c decision. of the District COUJ."'t of -WiUSor.m in Civil q>poal_ Noo 73 of :'f.9$1 1<fuia_ Orig~ Zanalci Primary Cou.i.---t Civil Case ~o·, · 120 ~f 1987) .·. ·. SOPitt~ ~it.i!JE3.ll. • o • • •.• • •·• • O OD o o ~ o O 00 O O t O O o ~ ~ o •.• .. • o t O O 11 0 DO O O llPPIITLLlillT .. ,....·.. - ·. ·..';,. G'.tJ)]lON l-'Z:tzf.. . . • . o • o • o o • o o •' o • o • • o o • • • o o.,• • o. o o o "o o •· • e • •·• e o. • o • IlllSPOND!IlNI' . .fu.DGMENT MCSBia J. .. Tho ap:I?ollant I Sofia lY'.ingcsa, who was married to. the· respondent, Gideon. Mziza, petitioned for· clivorcc J~foro tho prioary cou..i.-t of· Zanaki on tho gt-ound. of oruolty i~l:ic~~ pulminatcd in her being chased away :from tho m~trimonia~ homo• ; \ The prir,ic."'.l'Y · court □ agistrato and his t·wo tiss·cssors u.nmunously \ found tho ground :for divorce ostal)lisl:iod, ,a¢ granted clivo1~co bn. . . May 9th 1988 in tho »:r:~scnce of both parties.-: The rospondorrt failed to app?nl. to the district com-1· ·~f J'.iusona within th~ lcgolly proscr:f.:"bcd tine, mid on llpril, -12th 1991, whic~1 was · . . ~- about throe years· a:rtor tho prinai;-y cou~"i;- jud.gnorrt_ 1·ms delivered, ho filed a.n application for leave to appeal out of tine boforo tl~o district court on th0 gi:ound iihat ho was in p:dson, nnd. therefore failccl' to appeal in tirao. Tho district c'om--b was conv:Lncod1 ~ in. u ruling • ·t-,. . doiivorcd on J}!q.y 16-t,h 1_9~_, le?vo. to, nppoal out of tine wns grm'ttea.· . On ,J,;unc 8th 1 ~ tho rcsp?ndcnt :filed an nppo~l to tllo district " ..... court, and in a judgocnt dolivo::-ca on J;ync 28th 1991,' -tho district: court allowed tho appeal on tho ground thct the gr9',U'ld.s for divorce presented. before tho pr~ary courl wore not sufficiently ostab~ishcdo Tho district court sot aside the decision of tho prir.m.ry cOUJ.-1, and ordered a re-trial before nnothcr nagistrntc and a different sot of ,, 2 w nsse~sors. Tho ap~ollant felt ogc;ciovcd., ru1d honco this ,llJ?PC~ ·:.1. ·.·•.~··· . With rosJ.)oct, I ·?ID sailisficd tNi~ this appeal r.ru.st· succeed. • . ~ i-11 isoons to nc t_hat ti10 respondent :i.s a .seasoned liar, Ho told ilh~s court that ho was in :priE?on ~ri lh!( 9th 3988 when divorco wns grarrbod and 'jihnt it was on his :rcloasod f'ron prison that ho :found himso1f divorced. M tho trial court royord sho'!'s thnt ho was present !Ji cdi.tct .on tho dny tho divorce was granted'.(· ~econa.17, ·:it· is ebvious ;hnt -bhc. appollan!,' s long doley to appeal to tho district court wns unjuerhifio,d.1 -~o told thi~ eourt that ho was in prison in 'bhc yea.rs 1987 and i988, am this woi.tld thci'rof'oro noan that tho throo ;yoa.rs delay 1Q appeal c.4ruld not have boon right~ ~ aj.nod on tho e9-~ouna. ho gave that ho was in prison. /.nu ~hi:cyJ.y, it would appear that thd district oo'Ltrl order for retrial shall not servo . ~ useful purpo~o in the oirCUL1stci:hccs of this case,·· •The pnlt"bios, :tt is conceded, have no .\ ,_longer boon livil16 together in r.in-brimo:ny . fron tho date of c1.ivorco ~ in 1988 todatc. In addition i,o this long pcricxl of living sol)a11ately, tho :respondent told. th;..s ·court that tho appollmrt has •already boon nnrriod to a~othor nan, Quito obvioi.~ly, thoroforc, tho c;i.:r'cunstancos . ~- 9f this caso, p:i:-oporly considorod 1 could not have ·attracted an order for •~' ...... In the event, I allow tho appeal with costs, quash and sot aside i!he district oou.!'i; judgment, nnd hcro1)y restore tho prino:cy .~curl decision which grnntod divorce to the: parties. '.M:US OW.LA • P. MOSHI. JUDGE ..,,,... For- ........appellant -· . ,... P:t?osent in person For respondent - lTosonil in person ...