Shija s/o Kasimba vs Kulwa Shilangu (PC Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 266 (31 August 2000)

IN T}D HIGH COU OF TANZANIA • i ORA PC CIVIL APP.NO 10 OF 2000 NZEGA DISTRICT COURT CIVIL APP 6 NO 15/99 OPGA NYASA PRIMARY COURT CIVIL CASE NO, 3/99 SHIJA S/O KASIMBA •,, • , APPELLAN VERSUS. . KULWA s/() SHILANGU •... ,•, •, ••• 004 RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MASANCHE, J. This is a second appea1 The appellant Shija Kasimhà has lost in the two Càurts be1ow He is still aggrIeved hence this appeal to this Court. The facts of the case are not involving, though interesting. C The respondent is said to be an old man of Zhe age of 6ver 90 years, The case in the two Court below and here has been prosecuted. by a son. The son who was holding power of attorney informed me that his father is just too old to walk to Court. The other side, the appellant, retorted back that the respondent could not be that old. He asserted that if he was all that old., how did to he get the strength to go.'seduce the daughter of the appellant. Then, the son of the respondent retorted back and said that the truth of the matter was that his father, for whom he was holding a power of attorney, sent someone to seduce on his behalf. In order to iipres the • Court that the age of his father does not matter, he informed • /1

pC.CIVILAppN0.l0 OF 2000 2 the Court that his father has three other wives. This one the subject matter of the casewàs going ti be a fourth One. The facts of the caê as a'eed by. the two Curts belii are that this old man the de aged 904 went td t.he-en a rather of a girl who did not têtify, 8k course the 90 year did person sent someone to negotia±e for a marMage The appellant agreed to have his daughter married to the 90 year old man. Meanwhile the a.ctual daughter had gone to a native doctr for treatment. We are not told bihat she had been stuffering frrn There, it is said, in the Course 6f the treatment, she g6t pregnant. But, it w not before the apellañt had received 13 head of cattle; Shs 20 9 000/ and .Shs 15001, as dowry The girl came back to he parents, the appellant. No months later she gve bi±th to twinsi One 1 however, died immediately after deaths The respridètit had heard of the pregnancy and had also heard of the birth of the tidns Andthe respondent, had never gone through a wedding cerèrnny, stggestiflg alsO that he had never consumated the marriage. The respondent, therefore asked for his dewry back. The appellant refused to give back the dowry. He put up a case that the respondent had known of the pregnancy before and had direàfiy or indirectly accepted to marry the daughter with the pregnancy 1 Indeed, the matter went to the primary Ceurt of Nyasa, there in Nzega. The assertions of the appellant were not accepted by the Court 1 And n appeal to the District Curt, the district magistrate has also thrown 07 board th0se assertiãna. /

I ,. 'V 10 OF 2000 I am also thrwing over board those assertions. It is giarringly • clear here that the daughter of the appellant was made pregnant at the place of the r notivedjcte There is no evidence to show that the respondent agreed to marry the pregnant d1ighter of the appellant As suested by the primary Court and the first appellate Cbürt the appellant nrust return the 13 head of cattle, the sh8 20,000/ • and the Shs 1,5001=, This appeal is dismissed with costs, J,Ci MASANCHE JuDGE At Tàbora 31st Augtist 200 Ape1 present represented by a son 11t: Sir, I do not have the 13 head of cattle right now Can I py by instalment? Court: Go and write a letter. Appei1ant I will do se. • • J,E.C..MASANCH JUGE 33/8/2000