Stephen Mbura vs Bertha Ndege (PC Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 343 (6 December 1990)

.ii. "" ..::., ,. ---H r:- ·~,;~~W>::;~~J·--~~~~/:- --- .•.•;• r¥W~-"f~ . -: . ),. •· . ' . ' ~ .. .',I . .., " ~ SEKULE, Jo IN THE Hl:?ti C0U1i.T OF TANZANIA 1-'.,':f' M1jANZA -·•----- (PC) CIVIT, APf'tAL NO. 78 OF 1990 i.•i. ,.-. (f;rotl'I the decision ·of the District Court of 1'1usoma District at I 0 1usoma in Ci--.ril Appeal No. 6 of 199C),. Before! : 1 A. 4 Nohamed Esqo ·PDl'i., ) .Stephen jv1bura o•o••-o•oo•••o•oo.o•ocoo Appellant versus Bertha N-iege •o•ooo•••••O•ooooo••••o R.espon::leot J U !) G JV1 £ N T This is an appeal by the a pp ell ant !:>tephen i'1bura against th,:: Order of the two Courts below with regard to division of matrj_mouil prop2rty .. bt:.tween himself and his former wife, Bertha N1ege - the - respondnt o this appeal. ~ a The appellant and responi12nt were man ao:i wife. They 00-:: m .. "rrit::d :i· und r customary law- in 1979. In 1989, the appellant filed div.::>r-cc ·x- i ;:>roc2dings in the Urban l?rimary Court in l•,usoma Township. H::-: wc:s s,,ekin<; to divorce his wife and it would appar mainly becaus..:: he cdl;.:;.,d that she mismanaged his economic projects he had assigned or/anri. c.i:·crusc....:d to h2r to run and manage. Th..: trial Court grant2ct his prayer and pronouncc:d the m:.1rri:::t1,;·.:c dissolv,2d. And it also went on to or1er division o:t :.:.;1t· _ _;_r,;c-·i::-:l ;::,.r-or::rty that wc1s said to have b12en jointly acquired by ti-::! parti;s '.ur::.. 0 :,j t;1•:i bsi;tence of their marriage. Th1; respon1ent dirl. not app:al against the -::lissoluti::m of '.:h marria92, despite the fact that tht.:: r,asons for p.:;ti ti-:)ning f:.)y:· .:}i vo.::-c0 "•"l·:Jt on th part of the app2llant do not app2ar to me: to h~va/~stlish~d .c-a fully that this marriage was irrevocably broken ,jown. But sLiC ,.,:;1,_; of th parties in particular the respondent has not as alr . .:2dy s·c,_:t,.:d ab0ve, challengei this decision I will say no more on thiso The 2p11ant did u;:,p3l to th12 District Cot.:·': a9ainst th division of th"' ,_;r•:.:;?...:!:i:y the\ t was ordere1 by the trial CoJrt,, His appeal was how1::ver i:lut succ8s sful and h..:::nc.:: his app1;;al to this Court. Both parti2s appeaed in p .ol'.'Svn at tht? hearing of this :,_:J;:;...:2,l., Th.:.- appella.nt conten-ied at th he.::1ring of this appeal tha.'c tho two lower Courts di1 not take into .::,ccount the loss the r0s_Jonc'.:;r1t hc.S ·CQus.;.;;d o .his busi.ness during th subsistence of the marriagt;:)., H0 divided list...d ·tnt.: .propt:rty thc1t they were ordered to / btw-=an ·c.;km as follows:.:; ·. '{. A•,~• 'W:,:., ,.

.r two b-1s, two '.lining tables Six Office chairs 2 ·• 1:i ve pairs,' o·f bej sheet •. He was oriere::t>to g;ive hr three p,iec~~o:-. Two mattress.es. and· other .items as- , .. : . spcifid in the juigment of the triul Court. The r(::Sp,.m1ent c..intenied on her p_art. that she never cc::us--d th i:!llg1:d loss. h.Od if sh' had rjqne su, he WOlll:? 0 h,;1V.;; tak-.?n,-ac .. tLm .. c:gc'.L1S'C her .. Ani she futhczr c:iaim-,1;· 'thu·t srie.{ft the matrimniJ. h,.:;rn wit:h:,ut . - . • . anything. . .. . ,, ... She also cl.::iimed that ·the-r·t_i;_;i,.'7_s· tbey were ;:>ri2r ... c1 t:) ,:1,.:viie ' ....... , .. between th-2m are the aptic:l 1.::s that w.:re in her r'..>om· .<::.-,\ wl1ich th,:.:y o.cquire1 1urfng thi mariug-e; -· +',l;l~ 19.ppellant therwi~~ held. otl:":r wives • • ,.,.(,·' • • • ·:--: : • • ✓ •• :. Th<£?irs uppear· to Ji..1ve .b.een. ,a. p;J~.Y9~,rnus marriage:- ._:,: .. '..: · : ·. I have consi ire:i the evi ienc~., un reur'i anj I' m j-j;'_ th..:.:. vL;!w there was eviienc -th.:it these ::3.rti_cl i::S w_ere obta·inei ur ::icquir..Jd by·_ t:h:: partis 1urin(j· the subsisten~-t!- uf" thr.:ir- ma~~~ag~. '11.111 th<:! cL::im by_ th., r-.:.sp,)nient_. ,._ t,, h<.1V1.: thes~ :1-rticl>=s tiivi-je.j ]::><.,_;tw.ean thm, app-1rs i:o in,: .-;:,;. :J,; 3 ffiGiest __ _:1:.qucst on the pa.rt :)f th<;) .r:e·s·poni.ent. This prayer w s ·'.:1-.,r. f·)'':';. ip. my viw rightly enbfrtoin..:1. ani resul v1 by ·the trLl C .,u_:::-·:.:o I w0uf1 thcr'6':r'ute affdirm,j:Qe c.)ncurrnt iecisi 1l1 (>f __ ti,. ·:::w•.) lower C:Jurts 0n this issue. This- appeul tht:!ref.ore fails· .i'nf it __ is h .. r..:b.y' ·,.•· . 'L ···:.:?,ismiss1:r:1 ... · ... ;, ... . ·:. · .. _;: JUDGE ............. . 5/.12/90: I•,••; • . .. Deli vre1,:,i.n -the . • .. ,. ~ ,_,. \i1", ' ~c.. • ,-<:,...,..• ... : ..... --~ ...

• .,., ' -,.~ prserx::e c;f th· pdrties on th:ts•·Stn D'.::c..::mb,::;r. 1990 • .. ,. ; -_,' .. , ·\ !tt• ' . ;';:-.·,0. .\l'. t '' \ ·' I , ··-·,...., ." . ._ ··'· . . •M~•,· •.1<\ ._ J .,.~ .. ,~~,-- ' • :· h ..... , . .._., j Q ·, . : ' '. ,.,·, 990~ ; JUDGE. ---· ..... ·• .. , ,.
• ... ,- .,. .. .. . -~: ,.,i