. , ,. • IN THE HIGH COURT OF T!NZANIJ1 DAR. ES ?.ALAl!M DISTRICT REGISTRY PC. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 1996 JOHN JOSEPH •• ~ •• .'. : •• '! •••••••• APlELLANT ' .. .. VERSU.S • I ELIZABETH Zi\IDI ••••• . : •.••••••• • RESPONDENr RULING The marriage betv1een appellant and respondent was ordered dissolved by th2 P}imary Court J.Vlsoga Lugoba on 5/10/98. · The trial court further· ordered that the . ...., .I • . child Joyce be under the custody.of her mother but he· . . . ' father pay mair:i,tnance. No distribution of ·matrimon,ial properties was ordered. The respondent then filed • • another a suit claiming her share of the matrimonial assets; nmely, one house, coconut palm shamba and a plo,t. After he8.ring evidence the· trial court upheld the wifes claim fo•r diVisio of matrimonial assets. . . . . The husband.felt aggrieved and appealed on ground that . those assets were net jointl.,Y acquir.ed. The first appellate court,. again found f9r the wife on ground . that the.husband,h8d not explained when and how he .. acquired those assets, and that his first wife had not ' been summor.ied_ · to tes tffy on his •behalf. .. 0 . '.fhe · appellant has filed tnis_. appeal .claiming . . ·inter alia, that,hi•s witnesses were not summoned to .testify on his b,2h?,lf_ •.. Ag'?-in he claimed that the trial court did hot _take into account ihe receipt pertaining to the sale of the his •farm fr.om obe Shabani M.Kungumba 'on· 9/8/77. • · • 1 -I have perused. the trial courts r2cord; the appellf,nt summoned SU II Eli.zabeth John as well as SU III Cosmas John who testified on his behalf • . . •

2 Parties wer2 married in 1980 snd. divorced by crder of court en 5/10/94. They have one child t . Jcyce Joseph. ,The respondent had claimed duri11:g trial •that they acquired jointly :1.nd during. the pendenGy of their m8rrj .. r'.ge one -r.touse, a plot and 17 coconut ... r palms. The evic',ence of jo:i!nt cqui!::,ition was given by BM 2 Coleta Zaidi. J:,,s for the appellant, his . . daughter S£1-'i IJ, gave evidence· wli) .. ch in my view appeare<l . • ·fl . to be henrsay.. She dii{ nc't knew abc.-ut the house . . . or houses nor did she telt 3bout tl'ie boundariE;s. .. As for SU III apart from being a close relative of • .SU 1, he got the story from his fathr but SU III was' • - • 1 not present.when the hcuse'was be1ng built or when the plot -v,res being acquired. I have given seriuus thought b~ the testimony of SU 'II and SU III but I am not. , , satisfied if their evidence can til:. the sc::iles in the. _ f Appe;llants, f0vour. The appell3nt has.put alot of emphasis on the faat that the prc,perties in queston an for his :-• . . ·, two children born of the first marr13ge. Fair enou.:;h but-wp.o.t about the child Joyce Joseph who was born dur,ing the. cond marringe with the respondent. Isut she entitled. to something if,we . : go' by th8t crit2ria? ... I think she deserves··.3l•though . ,. here we are not dealing with who is to inμc_ri t what. I Jll considered I am satisfied that both lower ' .. courts came to 3. correct dec'ision. The lj~,oper.ties, . . . . ,- that is, the he use c1.nd the plct to' -be v3'1 uecJ... anp.' the respondent ta be given ·- . . .. dismissed'with costs. •• . half of the vsJ..-~e ,therecf, Appea .. • . ' . . . • • A.G. BUBESHI JUDGE Q/9/99 .. ..

,. ·1 ;, , .. . ,. .,. '

..

• lS .• '• . . ' • C· .. I, ~· , • - ,(. • ·• • ;·, ~ I f i , • .. \ •' • .. 0 ~« ~ If·. f. i ... .-,- .. ·.· ;_:·. ,. '* .. ,.,. .. •' f , ... . , . ...i .. , , ... ,. 1 .t •• , .. ~ .. (J . f ~ ~. 0 ~:i 0 '<> 0 ii-' ~ • .. : . . ~ .-r. lj e . . . . . .. .... ::,. . ~ t .. . . :, • ~ • • • • .• ... I' •, i. .. . .. • :-• ', .. L· iJ .. ,)" f' . fl ·•·?:; .• ., . .. ·• 0 ~ Ii e ·" . ' ~ : . ., • . 1 . .. .. .. ., . I: • t ' ·•, .. . ,, t, . . . . ., ·' ,1 I ·- I t : .,