George s/o Kasweswe vs Kamsasa Mwambisi (PC Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1998) [1999] TZHC 319 (23 March 1999)

..,. IN TflE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA . :A '.r HIBEY.A (PC) CIVIL APPEAL N0.32 0~-1998 (From the decision of the District Court of Kyela District at-.Kyela in Civi_l .- Appeel No.29 of 1997 and Lusungo Primary Court Civil Cse Number 31. o:f 1997) VERSUS. ••;,· TT ,, 1/fSA SA''. r,r.wA· 1_/tB. ·r ci-1- < • ' ' ,· .,, • . • • • • 0 • • • ,, • ' '• ~ ' • ' • • RE s-;:,o j\T:lii' HT .a.)..nJ..'1 u.'.1 J.',1 , y o :.. -, o c .) • o e o. " • ., ,, 1:,i o · ~ fl ~ o ., 4 "' ! ..... ..,'{.LJ,.i..:, .... JUDGMENT Th$ appellant Geor 5 e Kaswes'll8 is a strange·:tnan who wants to ·reap from"where he doesnot deserve to_r<iap and.is·ecl,uc·ated and a toucher for nothing •who is unv:,,ise and. do,es not coinprehend the truth and good justice to himself 2119- others The ap_pe-llant ·who was married to the respondnt 1 s daughter for 13 years and bore three children of his who ar his ri.ame Yvi thout paying any dowry at all. · When the repondent judc.ially enforced his r1ght to be lJaid a dowry of the three he.ad of cattle he is now demanding th.en refund to him he retaliated by divorcing the -respondent's daughtGr • . In this appeal he agrees, that _indood his. wife · bore him 3 children the last one of whom he says is not his child. That is certainly his legal dhiid so long as it was born in wedlock with his lawfulwi:fe-who was not yet divorced. If ho thought the chi,.ld is not his ht,:,should hE:ve found out who is her natural fther and sued him for adultery at action has never taken. From the appilant' s chc1racter which is full <ff- pages of vengeance ·~ .'. hG may be '.diiny:il'\g tl1e l::rnt child to be his as a usual wo.y of his / /

2 - relntion against his wife and father-in-law. Did he h.:;ve to wait 1.:mtil the respondent successfully sued him to pay the dowry before he could divorce his vrife • .After he got his divorce in-J.989 ho wanted for 8 year~ to institute this suit for refund of tho 3 head of cattle. ho paid through the court. He certainly was not entitled to nny dowry refund at all for he h8cl stayed wi ti1 the respondents dtiUghter for 7 years from 1982 u:pto 1989. In betv-,een he got 3 children from his wife and he did not prove thc,t it was his wife rs default which -led to the brcc:ck up of the mar:r-iage. Iviust likG ly it was his on default. Above that he W3i ted for 8 years bo':fore he could demand back· his dowry. He was the:rofore timabar0c1.:' from claiminc; it bcwk. _i;11 the grounds he gavo for not suing in court in tii:Ie f or---th ,· refund of the dowry vvere trash reasons •. The premise to re fund · the dow:1:J for o:ve.;r 3 ;;rec:.:i."'S should hr:w-e occured to him to be a cheat fit being c.l;l2.llc11e;od in court. Tl1.en his going to studies did not help hi.s yvisclom and higher epprehension in pursuing. h:i.s ri 0 hts either than 9cforo he went ·to the studies for he still kept quiet without sning the respondent for a long tir1e. The. 1st appellate court was correct to allow the arpeal on the grounds that the s1..u.t was tirrte bai--re d. This appeal is groundless. It is dismissed without costs. , ,' . /, sed: E.LoK. l'WJIPQJ?O, JUDGE 23 .. 399 Certified true <?OPY of the original Judgement. I . f J"-, .. , .· \A. . ..,.. ' .( .·· DISTRICT,: REGISTRAR NIBEY.A '--"'....... ~ \ . , •.. :c..":c-"