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
"· ,.·
,.._._.,.~
-~---.·~~
\