Mwakalonganya Mwakanyemba vs Mpwaka Mwalusamba ((PC) Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1998) [1998] TZHC 2483 (18 November 1998)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZ1u\JIA AT MBEYA (PC) CIVI+:, APPEAL NO •. 47 -OF :199.) ( Fro □ t_he decision of the District Court of . . . Chunya t Chlihya-:fn Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993 - 'ori~·inal·Ci:i.ril Case No. 24 of 1992 · .'' ,,. ' .. of Chunya Urban· Priraary Court

BEFORE : R. ·K. ZiJVIB I - S. D. M. ) MWAKJ\LONGANYA MWAKANYEivJ:BA • • • APPELLANT VERSUS MPWAKA. MWALUSAMBJ1. RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT -- . MlvIPOPO, . J. This is a useless appeal by the appellant. The uarriage between the appellant Mwakalongan;i--s/o< . ,-:~ Mwakanye □ ba and his \life who i•s not mentioned a;Y'1here . . . ~ . .. . . in the proceedings by name have not yet, &ot ·divorced. And yet the appeilan:t· filed this case der.ianding :f o~ re':fund of his dowry he paid to the parents of his· wife. The first appellate court disr;iissed the appe.al on ' reasons that there was no grant of divorce as yet. This '-~ was a correct stance of the law. No reful'.l,¥(J. of dowry can be considered unless there is a divorce. The appellant concedes that there was no grant 0:f divorce for he does not know where his wife is. Well, there.has to be a divorce first, suppose he has killed his wife and now he demands for refund of dowry despite having killed his wife? The respondent Mpwaka Mwalusai:1ba brought up another defence that he has been wrongly sued for the administrator • 1" •· •• /2

2 of the est2te of the father in law- or the_aP.pellant is knc)wn being his son who is still alive. This too could--- be a valid ground for having been wrongly sued~ This appeal is frivolous. costs. It is dis □ issed with 18/11/98 Mwipopo, J. Eo L. K .. MWIPOPO JUDGE 18/11/1998 · Mwakalong·anya Mwakanyeoba - Present in person· Mpwaka Mwalusar:iba - Present in pGrson Mr. Na'ali, Advocate for the Respondent_:.. Present c/c. · Mrs. Kasubiri COURT: Judge □ ent delivered in the presence of both parties. JUDGE . l8/ll/l998 /JJM