Luma Lubatula vs Philipo Rumalija (PC Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1988) [1998] TZHC 2534 (17 July 1998)
Judgment
JN 'I'hE nIGii COUHT OF T!\TIJZ!\l-TIJ'.
'
J:. T M 1i.t, HU
t.PP .tpl,Li:i.T.,.i; JUBI'3DICTION
(PC) CIVIL APP.L no •. J8 OF 1988
( . .l!'rom the decision of i;he Dii:.;tr.ict .. co·u'rt of Rwimba,. District ::i·t '"Tgudu in
~ - ' . '
Civil
1
po s/o k.Ull.'.!.lija -':lt I<.::ikorR Prim,=,.ry Court, 1.n kwimba
District~ Mwppe_:l no.40 tf-l'.:}87 - Before 1. i-.. L. Mgonjq, .£sq., Principal
.... :1Jiitrict l?nt Lum;::i s/o Lub;::ituln was successfully sued
1
by the.
responuent l"hiil';::igistr"'te And 1.;:ikorF.i .Prim,,ry Goqrt Civil G,:,se no.34 of 1987)
, I .. . . ,.. , . . .
I.,UM '1 LUbATUL/1. •.• ~ ..... •·• •. -. .•••••• ~ •• ,. • • • ·• , ••••••••.•••••• • •••••••• fl.Pf ELL,t T\JT
VlliHSUS
P HIL!.J,IPO 1.Ul-U,.LIJ A • .'• •••• · ••••• : • •· • •• ·•. • •••• • •• , •• • •• , , • • •• , • ~ ••. ri:.i;SPC
11
JD.ci"'TIJT
J U D .G M .d N T
-Th :·:ipp-:enza Region in R clAim for loss of ssrvicas of s "'warded eig-ht_he::ids of q;::itt.le only. Out of the eight
heAds of c<>.ttl-:a two ·w-er,~ s;::i id to be
1
S.qngo' th;::it is compens;::ition to tho
p,:,rents for ioss of services, ::ind two hGAcls of cqttle were for the '·
' .
legitim<>t.io·n of the child, while the· l::isi four ln"'ds o.f ct:1ttlc wer.a for
1
Nd.delo' th.<>t is (l1;:iint0n::ince fer the ·child until he reqchcs +.he Rge of
sE:ven. The :::ippdl?nt :~ first <i_ppe::il to Kwimb,9 District Court was dismiss'-:d
And this is A s\s d<>ughter
b;v,_ r,;,son· of_.t.he eppelL:int h<:iving m::ide his d::iug·ht6r prcgn,9nt •. The
d,:,u
0
hter g<>ve birt_h to "' Ciiild. The raspond•mt h<>d cbimcd 35 he.<lds 'of
c-;1ttle·but wcond app8al.
In the m0Jllori:>ndum of ;=ipp0<>l he concedes thqt indeed he w-9s ,
oblit56d. to p=3y two he;,ds of c;:ittl(:; for the legiti.m.c>:tion of th(: child.
Th:,it is not in dispute. The lJclFlr;:,tion o,f Gusto~;::i;.,. ~~w ·(L::iw of .Pe-rsbns}
GN. No. 279/196·.3 is appl ic;:, bl e to Kwimb,q ]!strict vide UF. ~
1
0;60 5/1963 ;;.nd
by virtu.0:.:: of S. 181 of th:::it lJecL:ir;,tio'n H ., f,/tfier of ,q cl1ilU born out of
wedlock i·s oblied ,to l,:: 5 itimize his chilcli · 'lnd so the ;:,ppell::int h<is
ri 6 htly concedd- to this cl?im.
However the "l.f.)pel1<=1nt Ch8lle.1:,5dS the ai'irds of the 'S.<i.ngo' (th"\t
is the lo$s of services to the paropts) and the
1
Ndelelo
1
(ih;,t is te
m;:,inten::ince rf tha child). J will disoss·firit the issui cf Sano.
It is now settled by .t.he Hit,h Court of T,rnz::ini,q th1:it ;, _p:::irent is 0ntitl,:;d
to d::im"'ges foi los of services when his d,:,uht0r is m,9da pregn,,nt ;:,ind
giV8s birth to ;::i child - see t11e d0ciRion of Hmlyn J. in the c;:,s<l of
SwRlehe Urembo Vrs. Sopi,, Yusufu; {l970) 11.c.D.n.112 And in the c;:,se of
Simon Vrs. Mp::ine5"'l"'- ~ (1970) d. c. D ri.194• See ;,lso the decision of S"!idi J.
2 ....
in the o::ise of .lf:ani S;::,lumu Vrs. i.i?.sif:=t iondo a (1267) 11.C,Dn,181.
Our oustom"'ry lqw in this respect h:as borrowed from the ..:inglish oanmon
l"!w whero th3 ol"' im for loss of services w<l·s born wi ti1 -!;he decision in
the case of Norton Vrs. J::i.scn ~ (1653) -Sty. 38. It is ;:i s;::,lut"'r:v rule
::ind I :,m
6
h1d it WAS incorpor,,tecl in our cu.stom<iry l;::,w •. Now the ::i.w:,rd
of two he:.:ids_ of ottle c"'rmct b8 i:,"'id to bs exo8ssive by ::,,ny stretch of
..
im::,,
6
in;::iticn. _1t is :=t re9son;::,ble su_m ;:ind I endorse it,
Goncerning the ;::,w2rd of
1
delalo
1
I Rm ofthe cbnidered view
~ .
th:=i t it o:a n be justified in _+.~O. .w::i·v-s.· · •;irst th,,rc, is th-, ol::i im for
.. ; ~
m:,inten;::,nce .du-ri·n·g·y··r·egn:,noy :=tnd triis is Allowed undr s.182· of the
Decl:;:,,r:,tion of Custan::irv L;:,w (Law of . .l:'o;I'SOns) ·a1:;T~:212b263. -\nd for
this we could. prov.id.., ·orie ·n~;d. oi' o;::it-tll.3 <i,moni:; th .. four th:at were ;:iw::ird:..d.
' ... - .
S0oc"!dly th8 f:ath,,r of :=t o:C1ild (even f-or R oiii.ld born out of wedlock) i$
...
obliged to m,:iint<>in him unu.t.ir s.129(12 of til0 LA!!. of M::irria£
5
·e -\ct wo,5
of 12.7.h GVGn if the s<> id child is in tl10 cu.stody of ;::, nother _μ0rson •
..
In tn.., cci s-: l1qnd it w9.s conc,;dcu tii:a t tl,1; child w;:is- with her mother ;:it
-- i ·.
h0r p:,rent 's homb ;:ind would rem:;iin th0re until h-- rt:.;:iohes tha ::,,ge· ci~
s1:,ven. It is for th-~ welfare of t11.,, SAid child ti.19t he should rem::iin
with his mcth0r until he re:achs tha ::ie of saven. Now for these savcn
y0prs the 6 r::ind fAthr h.::is to m:,in<>in his br::indchild nnd her d::iu 5 hter
.o1nd for sure h.d is entitled to p:=tymunt for the mR-int,m,,nce. Three hr:JFtdS
of CA-ttle for thAt purpose is not Flt ?.11 on the. high side considering -
the r::ite of infl::ition thoso d:;,:ys. In the ev1:mt I consider th::it the
::iW'3rd of four h~"'ds of CRttle for the mqinten:;,noo of the child WFts
re::ison?.ble qnd I Gndorse it.
In the m2mor::indum of ::ippt:.:Rl ti1e ::ippcll::int h;:is .o1:z:-(SU•:Jd thRt he h::id
p::iid Shs.12OO/-= o::ish ·for the m::iint~"1oince of the child in the presence
of ,3. ton cdl lc.:>deJr one Ir. Petro s/o bungR. But ti1is Pdr ;/o ung:;,
/ .
WFtS not c,,lld ::is R witni:,ss ::it the trial· <ind til 1 :i rcspcnJ.,int erophtic1=1,lly
dcied to h::>v.~ hRd recGived th:;,t sum. I ?.m s::,,tisfied til:it·the triFtl
\ .,
court w.::is ont_itl:.:d to. dismiss tiie Ftppell::int's cl:;,im ::is he h:;,d f::iiled to
\
subst;:inti::ite it. In '3.ny CRSl.l B -sum of Shs.12OO/= would h::ive not b:;:en
\
suffici~nt to mFtint::>in ~ ·child for some.seven y0<>rs.
In fine tna ;;i.ppe;:il is entirely d'ism issed wi tti, costs. Order
?. ccordi ngly.
JU 1J G.dJ.
ch~mbers this 14th. d.::iy of July 1988 in
:;, .
K
' :· • L. M1iALLJS:l"r<IA
JUDG.i!J
'