africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[1988] TZHC 484Tanzania

Chacha Charles vs Marwa Magohe (PC Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1988) [1988] TZHC 484 (11 August 1988)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

:~ : lt>;(: :-i., ;, --· IG JN TEE HIGH COURT OF Tb"nJJiTIL. f Nivll.NZI ..

 PCo CTIJJL l.PI'I1'.L NOo 68 OF 1988 . 
 (F--..con tho decision of tho Do Co Se:;.•oncotio In Civil 
 Cc.so No~ 82 of 1986 of Konyo.n2. P:riDDX"'J Court) 
 CII.{.CIIJ. CHllU.LES. o o • o o o ·o b • o o o a o ~ o o o o o o o o e o o o a o d o • • e ft & o o o e o 6 o o o • e 1.J>PEliI...CJ;rT 
 VERSUS 
 ]~l}T.t:.. I-Jf,.QQB:E. o o c, & e c e "o ~ o o ;0 • e 6 ~ c, • o o e. o c o o o o 6 • o o t1 o e • ~ o o o et o e • o o o e .aJ:GSFOl\TDENT 
 JUDGMENT 
 MUNYEJ.L. 
1 
J • 
 T',c respondent w2,s plaintiff in Kon;:;rona. PriJJ2.ry Courto Ho 
 JUod tho c..p1)ello.nt. for rccovory of 15 heed of c2.ttle dr.3c::eos for ndultcry., 
 It w2.s Lis case tLo..t in 1982 he was teaching in n l32,£~cr.1oyo school s.nc.l wt1s 
 with '.:1is wifo Ko,nyn.r:.:e11!lc1 (PW2). T'.L10 wifo G0VO M..rth to twins so ho 
 decid0d to send hor hone. Lstor snno ycr;r ~o was j~iled for two yeo:rs, 
 when he ccno out L.0 l:.nc1 no ·ooncy to onc..1Jle hin iXJ,."'f for his journey hone, 
 . be decided to look for onl;loyonont. In 1986 he wo,s n,1:Jlc to return hor.10, 
 to his dis:Jc\1,1' :.:.o founcl. l~is wife wi tl: a. child. (not the twins~. He c.1,skod 
 Ler wL.o ;.:2,cl r.1ado her progn2.!lt, she Llcntionocl tho 2,ppel12.nt, 110 filed t::is 
sui to In :.:.is defence the c.ppellc.nt cloniod to hr-,vo hnd o;ny connection witL 
 the wonen. · The trial coui--t founcl tho rospond.ont LG.d. :;_:,roved his case o.nd 
 nwardod the 15 cows cl2,iI:10(le The -e,:):;_.,ollc111t ,::1)po::-.!,led to the District 
 Court w'.1.ich d.isnissocl tho ;-,l")l,oo.1 ~?/1inst lir:l,ili ty l)ut rocluced tho 
 I . 
 quanturJ f:ron 15 to 10 hoed of cattle. Tllo c.,ppclla.nt was not satisfied 
 and Q,l)l)eded to this court. Ile still insists tLo..t he did not nrike the 
 ~espondont 
I 
s wife pregnnnt o..ncl i2S such ho is not lic..blo to aclul teryo 
 This is an appc;:-,.1 n.sc,inst concurrent findings of tho two lower 
 coUJ."ts. In such n situo..tion this court would into;;."fore only if tlle 
 findings were bt.1.sod on 11 nistc:ken view of t:10 law or wore e,.;-ainst tho 
 W0icht of ovidenceo In this caso the lower cou.:rts erred in law. The 
 trial court invoked tho provisions of PE.'.J."n. 183 c.nd 184 of GN 279/63 ( tho 
 appellate Senior District Magistrn.to nc.de no COLa·,,onts on then) thc.t as 
 . tho woran.n hn,d mentioned tho o..:ppolla.nt as the on0 who no.do her pregnc.nt, 
 thc.t wns a conclusive pr-oof of 2.c.ul tery. But these. provisions apply 
 only to cases of customc.ry law of n.:ffiliation when the dispute is between . 
 /_.,,/ 
 an unmu:rried wonan and Lor j?i..U'cnour Md tho conseg_uo:i:ices arc rostrictecl to 
 th0 putative fo.tl1or peyinc; tho costs of :pre,znc,.ncy onc'I. child birth (pnra 189)" 
 This one wcs a different oa.ttcr in which tl::o Lus1:..ond (respondent) wo.s sui.1,1['.,· 
 I 
 for adul tory. Ile L:::.d to prow his en.so by cvic~cnco to tho stantk-,,rcl roq_u.iru;, 
 in oi vil oo.,s0s. 
 •• 0 ~ 0 .. /2~

2 
 I find :tho trid court wronGlY o:pplied those 1,rovisions to this c2,soo 
 Strip::_,ed of tl.lis 
1 
tho rosponclont 
1 
s c2,so restocl solely on his wife's 
 conf0ssion 0 I 2..r:1 of tho viow t:1;--.t this confossion clone wr,s not enoueh 6 
 No person (!,'2,vo evidence thc..t l,o Lo.::_)penod to soc the appollo,nt together 
 with t:.c wonn.n 2,ncl no nontion tllnt there lTM ~r res0o"bl2.X1CC between 
 tL.c chil<l. nnd the c.ppcllo.nt~ Tho wo;;12n 
I 
s bcre l'.Ssert ion tlln,t sLc was 
 mr:.d.c precnnnt 1)y tho appelle,nt cannot 1Jo to.ken for £,--rc.11tGd, s110 could 
 11::wc got tho cl:ild by r:.notb.or r:12.n shG did not w2nt get · into troubloo 
 For tLe D.lJovc ro,_sons I find the rosponclont did not :prove his case, . 
 I allow tl10 appoa,1 
1 
sot c1sirl0 the concurrent clocisions of the lower 
 courts [l11c1 order tho respondent 
I 
s suit co clis1:1issod in its entirety o 
 Ho will pcy costs in all courts 0 
 /fL 
 Fo lfl~rrEPJ4 
 11/8/~988 J1IDG::J 
 "· ,.· 
,.._._.,.~ 
 -~---.·~~ 
 \

Discussion