Rajabu Hassara vs Saraya Rashid (Civil Appeal No. 21/81) [1983] TZHC 74 (26 May 1983)

CIVIL APP:C.:G no; 21/810 HAJ .. \13U Hl • .SSli..t'{A • • • • • • •" e • •• • • 8 S.AJ?..AYA ll\SEID cae•e..,..,o"'ooe,,o~.o RESPOlT.ILITT

J U D G I.I B lJ T: RTJI-IOT.IBIIC/1. - JUT.JG:E: This is on interesting appenl, involving thG disputed right of occupr,.ncy (or title) in res;:iect of a plot codefied as FLOT H0.274 - EX ·- DAYA ESTArcB in Ilala District in the Cit;y of :1)nr es Sc.12-0.ra. 'rhe crux of the 2.ppeo.l is wllethcr or not there l:.Cl.d been "good ca-usc 11 for the rc:voc2.tion o:f the L:ie,ht of Occupmic;y of t},e appellc.nt, followine which · revoco,t:Lon the said nlot wc:s re-allocc. ted to the re:::J?ondent, SI,R..IYA HASHIDI, br the Distict La.11.d Development Officer, presu.r:iably of Ile.lo. District, who teBtified befor-:; the lower Court as P','!. 2. ThG arpellm1t, R.A,JLBU IE.SSLRA, was offered the Right of Occupancy iri- rei:;pect of the plot described supr~~ as far back as 1968, and he was in tlmt resped the first occupier of the kmd comprising tho.t plot., he Richt of Occupcncy of this etppcllan.t wo,s eventuo..lly ievoked by the Preside:'lt 7 who was uoved by the Lcmd Office to revoke the title for non-compliance of the conc1-i tions ctipu:tated in the Right of Occ:upc.ncy in question., Accordinr.; tp the evide:1ce, the District Land Development Officer described the Ric;ht of Occupo.ncy Granted to the :,ppellcmt o..s a nshoi·t - term" Ri,;ht of Occup.-:-mcy renewo.ble year-- after year, and went on to expl::-.in thc.t it is one of the conditions stipulo.ted in the Ri::;ht of Occupnnc:, tho.t 11 the President w1.;y- revoke the ric,:,.1.t for c;ood cause 11 ,. . The respom1.ent in t::1is ~,ppeo.1, 8_Jffi,'.IY:\ 10\ .. :EroI, h2.d instituted a suit o..r:-:a_inst the_ Pr1)"'11;:c';'.)_t-- , --loo;- .i.;..,.. -~-. ' Eo.gistrate 's Court Gt Lisutu, in Civil C_o.::rn Ho, 321 of 1971, in respect of the dispute/\ plot.q Ther0 w,,s _:,. :full heo.rinc of the suit, end the District Land Development Officer wr: .. b c,'.:'.lled c:.s a witness to testify for the plc.iut:ifi.-- in respect of vhr,t WE:nt on and whc,t

ho.d act.i vo. ted the Land Office to pave the ,President to revoke the Ri3ht of Occupancy of -the first occupier, thct is the appellant before this cou.rt. .The L 0 ner Court Ws,s satisfied that there was "good ca.use 11 :tfor the revoc2.tion of the right, and. following thnt finding the lo,:.>er court decreed for the plc.i...'ltiff, the respondent before this court. Tholower cou;d decreed tho.t the dcf,mda.nt before that cou.it (who is the appellant,. 11AJ.tJ3U HASSARL) should revoce all the Bo.terials he had put on the disputed pl:ot, exceept the foundntion, which had been pnid for by the plaintiff; i.e., the respondent before this court, o.nd that such dembl:i.tiori. shdi.lld be c2,rried out within three weeks to enable the p'.Lo.iiitifi' erect c. buildine onto th0 plot through a. lean procured from the Tanz,::ni2 Housing funk, o.rn1 further that the demolition should be c.t the exp8nce of the c1efendnnt (i.e the appellant). The defendant before the J,ower court wns not se.tisffod with the decision. of that court A.nd decided to ar,peal to the Hi@l Court. During the hec-.rin6 bf th8 appeal both the .cppell::rnt (RAJABU H/1.SSARA) (\ the-t:ei:rptindent (SARAJ'.YA RA,'3:HIDI) were represented by leo.rnod counsel. Mr, :a.,,119nz.i, lec..rfrxl Advocc.te, rpresented tee c.ppel1c,nt c..nd Iftr. I'i.i..':l.r21.ndo, lcC'.rned Corporntiort Cows el .frbtl · tho T 0 )1zo.nic. Lego.l Corpor2.tiori, rupresentod 'the respondent., The 0p;;ier1l vro.s ·well o.rgued by both counsel. Llr. fu.lionzi; for thG c.ppellb.1-i:t set out four min BI"bunds o'f nppe.:i.l in the menbr:::,i:ldur.1 of npj_:)ea1. l. Thi.:t the 1•3'"'.rned Principal Resident M,'J.gistr:::.te erred fr.1 lm, ci.nti cin the f.r.:cts in det·ermini..'1£i tho. t the a.ppcllr.::nt 's title to tho suit precti$eS. (s:tc) 'ho.d been property revoked., 2. .Thc:t the lec.rned PI'incipc,l Resident .Mngistrnte erred in law c.nd on the fo.cts in fi..."ldinc; thnt the respondent hc,d n vc.lirl l1icht of Occupo.ncy to. the suit premses· ·(sic). 3., Tho.t tho l'..:'.r:-1.0d Principo.l Resident l'fagj_stro.te erred in 1-::~vi r-.nd on facts i..YJ. fiilding tho.t the nppello.nt wd.s not entitled to build [:. hous<;;, t 0 corapletion art the suit premises (sic) 4.. Tht:.t the lec.rned Pr1ncipcl Resident :i'.Jagistrate o.bdi'cated :hip jud:i.ci,:i r.esponsibil.i t;r by refusirig c.nd or neglectirl:g :_:tilSj3.eas. tha m;-a~~ O:f e.xl1r'.usted it1provements on the suit premises (si-J. The lea.med cdunel f.or i;he_ o.ppelltmt. concEJc1ed durint the henring of the npr,eul.' thr-.t the not1_ce. of the revocation of the rigl+t in respect o•• • ,../30·.•·••

of the appellant was published in the official Gazette on 26f}/76, and that the plot was eventually re-allocated to the respondent on 29/12/76. The same counsel further conceded that although there was no statutory requirement that the occupier has to be notified of the intention to revoke the titl~, it has been held that it was necessary to notify the o~cupier (in this case the appellant) of the intention to revoke the right (or title), otherwise the revocation would be nulll and vci>1d 1 relying on the decision in the case of Director of Lands and Mines

v. Sohan Singh (1952) I TLR (R) 631 9 at p. 635, where the very passage by .Abernathy, J. was approved in the case of Prem Chand Nathu an.d co. Ltd. v. Land office (1962) E.A .. 738 at p .. 745., The learned counsel went on to argue that if the appellant was given the qpportunity to show cause why the right Ghould not be revoked he could have shown to the Land office that he was const- ructing the house and that the right coul_d not have been revoked. Since the appellant was not given that opportunity, then the revocation is null and void, ·and the Land office had nothing to rG-allocc:ite·to lme respondent. ~rft Marando, for the respondent vehemently .argued that the revocation ·w·as proper, and that after the revocation the appellant had no ti tl,e t-o the la:nd C;Jmprising the disputed: plot any moreo He submitted that the appellant was allocated the plot under a short-term,Right of occupancy in 1968, but because.the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of eveloping the said land, the Right of.occupancy had to be eventually revoked. Relying on the ~viden<.:e of the District Land Development- officer (PW .. 2) who testified before the lower C•:)Urt, t}Je occupier (i ... e .. , the appellc1nt) was supposed to erect. a building of th{: st_andard approved by the City Council within one yea~."' But that up._to 1976 the app~llant had not even submitted the building plans to be approved by the city council, mor had he sent such plat'ls to the Land Registry for noting of the approval., According to the Land officer, Mr .. Marando argued, the house was to be comp1eted for accupation in 1969, but for about 8 years, the appellant had not been able to complete the building, thereby failing t,, comply with the conditions stipulated in the Right of occupancy, which state of affi rs constituted 11 good ca:1se 11 for the revocation. Mr. Marando went on to distinguish the two n,-,tices involved in the arguments of this appeal. He argeed that whenever "good cause" arises for ...... ... 4} ...

the revocation, the occupier is served with the notice of revocation:; which is eventually published in the official Gazette. He th2n conte:nrl:. .. -.:. that the notice of the ,c.--·--.·;;,t:i )n was served to the appellant through his postal address, and later it was published in the official Gazette as General Notice Noo 384 of 1976 published on the 26th March, 1976 .. · The learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute these f3ctso Mr ... Marando went on -to argue that the other notice involved in the argument on the part 0f the appellant, which appears to be precedent to the revocation of the right is not a legal requirement; that is to say there is not legal requir!;! for the President to~-~~<.:. the occupier with the n_otice to shms cause ~ 2 s_why_ the riht shc!, not be revokedo The kind of notice that the occupier is served with, is only to inform him of the revocation decision, after such a dec.i "' 0 had been re:-:ched whGre there is "good causei·; f;.r. such a revocation,, and that is when the Land office would move the President under· the law to revoke the right. The learned counsel•for the respondent went on to argue that after all the legal fcrmalities were complied with, the Land Off;i.ce re-allocated the vacant plot t0 the resp6n"dent through a letter produced as exhibit 11 D" in lowe court., The 'espondent proceeded and obtained a certificate of Title (or Right of occupancy) on that plot - Noo 186205/47 in the name of SARAIYA RASHID., The L2.nd Office at Ilala by the time of revocation cal led in the Valuer from th4 Ministry of Lands, who made the valuation of the foupdation and put it at the a1ue of shs. 6,000/=, and the appellant was notifi::.' .. that and asked to go for the compensation.. Howeverr it is further Contended by the respondent's side that the appellant never paid need to the revocation order and as such continued to build hurriedly onto the fdundation he hed l::d.d., This prompted the f::'espondent to go and compl·ain to the Land office at Ilala, and the appellant was rent a letter (exhibit "F") to .inform him that the said plot nc longer belonged to him, but he would not care. on 23/6/77 a court in3unction was served against the appellant through a affixation on the plot, and the appellant, according to Mr. Marando accepted to have seen the injunction, despite which fact that appell·ant continued to build on the plo-i: 1 the conduct which amounted to t.,tespass.ing on the land of thE" respondent. Mro Marando sought to distinguish the case of the rector of Lands v. SoEan Singh cited by the learned counsel for 'the appellant fr9lll the presnt appeal before -;:Jii.s court., . He argued thu:c. in that case an extension of time within which to completethe work.rls had been granted,· and that extended time had not elapsedr but the officer of the Crown simply anticipated that the party would not complete the works and r.evoke the right with,y•.1t having inquired into whether or not the pa.r:ty would complete the building in t:l'h,'Tle"' Learned counsel for the ;:oespondent went on to argue that that was a particular case, ·and that its particularity was confirmed in the second case cited by the learned counsel for the J'J.P!3!3ibiha:s.hp that is that case of Prem. Cha11d Nathu and Co .. Ltd Vo Land. officeri and that if anything-wrtcrt" was held twas thtth;g1:;1g--;Tn6tTe to ci:JoW cause was not mandatory up~n the c.rown, and that their Lordships in the Privy Council stated that Abernethy 9 Jo was correct only in the circumstances of the case before him 1 8.oeff, !..r, t?.e:ference to the need to serve a party with the notice to show cause why the righi..: c,oc,:,/Soee

should not be revoked. This. court agrees wi tl'l the cm1tention o:f the learned counsel for the respondent thD.t the· President in being moved to revoke.the Right of Occupancy of the appellant he was not legally required to cause the Land Office to serve the appellant vii th the notice to show cause why the right should not be revokeci. However, the court is quite au fail. o:f the fact that the court has inherent powers to look int6',the grounds upon which the revocation was based, and to be able to rule whether or not these grounds _constituted II good cause" :for the Land Office to move the Preaidnt to revoke te right. In this appeal before court, it has been proved,. accorr}ing to the evic'.ence on recq:r;-d, tbnt tl1e appellant was not able to construct and complete the buildj.ng within the·"'J?.eriod of time which was stipulo. teu 'in the Rig.rit of OccupaD;CY offered to him f!r the devc.lopraent of the plot in question. This clearly indicates that the appellant failed to comply with the stipulated conditions in the Right of Occupo.ncy, and non-compliance with such conch tions constitutes II good cun.se" for the right to be revoked. There is no record to show that the appellant had approc.clied the !.and Office for the extension of time within whic11 to complete the building, but it appears that 2.s long as he .,,..had put up a foundation on the plot, the appellant thought thut he could keep the plot· at that stage of development inc1efini tely • Let it be clearly understood here that .the L:.'l.nd Office is reaponsible •, ' for the development o:f the arveyed (alienated.ltmd) plots of which the Rights of Occup2-ricy are offered to·the occupiers, and they hnve therefore a statutory duty to see the.t the occupiers have to develop their· plots according to the conditions. agreed upon by the occupier when the Right of paancy is ofered to such an occupier who signifies the acceptance of those conditions by-sigining 'on the Right of occupancy, after having rea:d and understood those conditi ns. ·The c'ourt is aware that some of the document's' used by the Land office are ttill written in English, but even though the.appellant could not have been debarred from understanding that·he was· supposed to complete the building within one year, Leo, . in 1969, but up to the time of revoking .the right in 1979 there was.nothing more on the plot except the foundation. This fact that ther: was just the foundation·whe the right was revoked is also reflected in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant where he said: "On the admissi--n .,f the respondent she· found a foundation on the dispute plot.., Apparently, the Land office sent a V~luer to value the foundati,n and arrived at a figure of shs. 6,0ooJ .... a figure which wc:s "lotified t,·1 the respondent but n:)-: to the appellantt! •

6 -· After having carefully considered the grounds of appeal as set out in the memorandum, and after having analysed all the arguments of bo both the learned counsel, this· court is full conviced that the Land office decided •to move the President to revoke·the appellant's . ' right for 11 go·oct cause" as· contemplated by. the land law governing the Right of occupancy offere'd t,J ·the appellanto There is no injustice cau$ed to the 'appellant ih the revocation, but the appelh a:g,;ellant should hold :himself to blame for what even loss he might have incurred in the 'demol:ition of whatever structure he erected·on the foundation after.the. revocation order and after an injunction order· of the court to ·stop him from continuing with the construction~ This then disposes of the first three groun 11)::'ounds of appeal. The decision of .this court to make it clear is that the revocation order:was proper. and made for "good cause"? ! ' . and could not theref.ore be declared' ·by this court to be null and void. There is no basis for this court to upset the decision of , I the lower court or to have the revocation order nullified. As for the fourth.ground, that is concerning the assessment of. the compensation to the appellant which w~s done by the Valuer, this court accepts .tr.ie rgument for he appellant that the assessment Wa$. rather arbitrary bec.a:use,:·th.fF ,appellant was not given the. opportunity to sh"w-what he had incurred in·respect of the . \ . . ' ' , ~ ' founation r.ected on the .plot.. The court finds it equitable for the appellant to be henrd·on the expnses he incurred regarding i that· foμndaticno This court therefj-t•e finds that tnis matter . s.hould .be left ,open. .fer. the lower, .court which heard the suit to go into in detailo The lower court wilt ha,ve to hea.r .the valuer I who did ·the valμation exercise 1 heat' .the appellant and any other evidence that the appellant may have to prove that he spent more that shs. 6,000/= on the fuundation. The .lower. court wil.l then determine the assessmeni. after having heard. all the necessar_y__ ' ' evidence, or after having had the opportunity to see the d?curnents ' ' by way of receipts, er othei:wis2, which wilil pro'[e that the\ appellant spent more than shs., 6,0C0/= on the foundation. That will then dispose of the second pa1=t of the appe 0 Apart from that order to remit the record to the lower court for proper determinn tion of the assessment of the shs. 6, 000/= .. , ... ~ compensation di'sputed by the appellant, the ap!)eal is otherwise dismissed with costso

Delivered in chambers this 2E:+·'h c.ay of. M9-y, 1983. Mr• Ballonz;i for the appellant., · Mr. Musa ti ( T.L.c.) for the .respondent. DAR ES SALAAM 26/5/1983,., Q .. R D: E R .. Let the rec;ord be remitted to the Resident Magist'rate.•s court at Kisu.tu to comp-ly wi·th the order o_f the High court in properi!y determining the assess~eri.t of the compensation; which ,now -stands at shs .• 6_,000/=, ahtl' wh'ich the appellant doe_s not accept_. 26/5/1983. . '

(:-'C) MATRINON:tAL c:rv:;:r, APP.EAL NO~ 23 OF ".!.981 (From the dec.isi.on of the D:tstr.·:• c:. Court of KINO~!I:,ONI at HADLIA s/0 ISSA .,.,.,,,.,,..,,.,,,,. •o.-4•.-.', CC<'~ .. .,,:,oo.-APPELLANT MTORO .S/0 ·KONDO "'"".""""""""a• ~·.,.,"'"'""'.,c,,,,,..,.,.,o.,,..RESPONDENT J'UDGMENT

• .... -=.-:,., .. Thi.s is ar: a.ppea:.. f.,;:-om the decision of the Prima::;:· Court at K:i.nondoni .tr Da:: •28 Sa).aam? 'I'he Appellant Hadija Issa 5.s the second wi:J::'e of tr..e Respondent Mtoro Kondo., The Appellant was the or~. ginal pti.t.ioner i:.1 Kinondoni. Primary couh-t,, Appellant c-.nd Respondent at.'e Moslems and were married in cy- accordance with the .cite.s o±' r-.:>slem ::-:: ligion in 1976,, After thelr ma:-:riage they l:tvec. and conabited at a house with the first wi.fe of tre Responden': hex:e tn the city .af Dar es Salaam. In 1977 ·:he 3.iJPellar~-:: ,:1.nd the :i.·esponden~~ qt.i.arrelled · a.;1d the res- pondent p1..;.:r:port(:::c: t.:, divo.z:c0 · :;-;;:,;. -•i.fe t!-:e appellant: gave her Afte):- a few days, t:ne parties reconc:l. 1 .ed a.'1d lived Again in 1978, the Respondent gave the Appe:!.lar.t another.: nte1akf 1 but af't<=r a few days they reconci.led and lived togethec .:.[, !.•lSba.nd and wife., It is in evidence that the i,ppellar.t d:'..d not like t.c) sha.r.:e the matri- monial house with the ".!.st wife of the Ref:po21de:1:t. and because of this, the Respondent had to look fo::- a se:.;_)arate house for the Appellari.t and by 'l.979 t.he R0.s;x,nd121·;:: oug;,': a sraall house for Unfoz.-tunately late in :..979 th<:: Recponden· became jobless and he :founc. city life without a. Job to be s,,ur and as such, he decided to m.,.vc ·.tlith both of ;.,.1.s ;,,;:l.V~"?S to an up country village .L.1.,-,.o L,.1... A:ter- only ten days of stay in Appellc.<:'r<:: dP.cided to come back to the city;.. ... - A sh9rt ... claimlng that she was r-.0t :.. 1 .se:.:: to ·.;.tve :tn a villageo view to persuad5.ng hr to .:::,"tLr-r: c::o t:--,e rr.atrimonial home at ~~':::.-: village but wj_t]1o;t SU.C,:'.E:SSc made by the Respo:1deni.. to p<;.:L>'.;dd-o: !:'eturn to the matrir.ionial PomE:: bnt se-..e:-::-al otl1e:.:- attempts were .r ,. r-.!: . .s w::1f.e to see .s<'.mse and . J as befor2~ his attempts wer~ home becaus<~ she wc:ts net i..:.sed i;o vi.lJ.a.ge .i.:e and also bec 4 ause. . ' . the Respc:1dent husband d.1.d ,,c,; ,,,,:1.l:i::.a:: .. n 'he::.· :5..:-!. the city •. The matter ,,_-2.s hro;,igh'c be-f6e '/' o.r..;:iag::: :::.onc,il i2ti.o:n. '30:1rd., . --- ·The oneo-"•/2 ;.

• 2 - Board after hearing the matter and failing to reconcile the parties issued a certif1.cate referring the matter to Kinondoni Primary Court in nar.'...es-salaama After hearing the evidence from both sides, the Primary court granted the divorce with an ancillary order to the effect that the Appellant should go on receiving house rent of 2~S. 50/= per month as maintenance from the house of the Respondent which is in the city. The Appellant is dissatisfied with the order of maintenance alleging that the amount of money that•s 50/m per month she was going to collect from the house rent was very small. She is as well praying that she should be given a share to the house which she built together with the Respondent. she went further and claimed shs.300/= as being dowry which the Respon<lent promised to pay her when they contracted their marriage and the Respondent had not yet paid her the amount promised.

• t -- The reasons underlying the Primary Court•s decision are to be found in the Judgment which for ease of reference is set out .r.-: .. ,. :-:/'atika Juil<;ri, ;t?lak~ Mahakarna haina budi kufikiria kuwepo ushahidi kwamba ndoa imevunjika kiasi arnbacho :,;-;wei- .teQenzw.a .. ;t~na!' r, .~ati ~~aF; t:li i:iia,c:if' ana tabia ya kurnwacha acha mdai kila wakati, sitoshe .--,., r· :::-:hiwezi kuwporlazima··•kati· yo kwani, ndoa karnahmktabai , ... ni .hiari 1 .kaj;i. Y.<r watu watti;l,1, "{anapo)q.Jl>liar,9 ... , I]p,11,a . - ,_

• ... patalctiwepo na' migj.a wao kut6ridtiika na kuishi na mwe-· . . ! . . . , :iLh r-nzie, ·si vizUrirJculazimisha .. · Hi\tyo nakU.baliat)a kab1sa· :'.:-: t... .r,;i~ .maoni ya_ washau.;:i '. kwamba. ullahidi ,"1,mtathibii kwamba 'ndoa irrievunjika.kati .. yao~·,,· .. ',;. ,' ... '-' . - V.>. · i . -- ~ i , ·; . ::· I - ~ ; .'. }'1:l:l pr,tmost rpect,te. tt:ie. tri?l, Pim8fY,:oU+t,,t;1agit;.}; and :.ei:_i;eme. Asseosu I. £a9,.ot .agre .tha ~1l1e ~c\w. ;~s F.s _s:t,~tr4 by .- 1~ ... h Judge~~ .of,Jhe Prim 1 Co';lrt;•+. ythile ;F .j,):ru 11 :that ,.tois.Co.1i1rt .wouldnq~ outitnarice .. any attmpt. ':o .. comp;l. a: wife to • • , • .1, .I- ... ,:, . • • "" ' • • • . • . ••• . · ••. - '-- • . 1:tf?l t:9 a, usba,nd,_ or rnqm Ise fees .,.no J9y.e,.i t i, -Pt th 1 !~~,- }:at _;n :sue a c'rs thr: .Coi::t wo1,1ld .. bT ~~ti~~~,9-.-to! 9-iv;9e .. the parties on the ground as stated in the JUdgment. Needless to point .rr,. . r , · : ~ - .. l · ! .,,; ,· • . i. ·'. .,i.. f ,..> .... r :- ' .:-- ._ .. ,.. .. : r. j { ,rl '1:--.:: t. I out that,faced with such a case that is a case where a wife for no : leai:ly Jsifiie"rsd~ ·;iefue; to ;!t;;f ;,_d 'i1,;e i1Bl l!r .t:·i-1 :t· : .i -_ ,.·_.", :l.. ,: huban, the only legally and roper action for the court to take "". .. . .. . " . on the.,.m<:~~er,_is; ~~relt. -.f tl1a~_ if 1 s_h~. o_es o £t':1f.1!;Jo· her • t. . husbanl'.it,she shall ·thrby •be disentitl".ilng 'herself J frc:mi any main- h.· .. : - ::~ : ·:;;, n .:.. · :_::·... _ .. ..;_:; · :,L·-·ri r.t ~ 1 11. ;,_t ·: tenance: 1 by 1 :hei;: hsbc:m?: •.. This t;he· Co'!Xcan. do b'f1: t.~ c~~h9P no more. ,.. ,. - • #" • • ' •-• - ·-.- .. _. --~~·1:,; : <J •• l / I No\i/ I 'cotne' to t:ihe'Jpoirit of'f.Bride ·,wealth;;:·--1:iirii Appell:ant is . r..,.;: t ·_ •• ~ ·1r!. kL '----r; ('! :' • .. /·/- lt ,.~~- · -- - n·. :7 __ l._L·;. cl airnig f_Of: ,?,hs. 300.?.ir, ~~ ~ bf:ide wec;\l h ,f rm, -_hfl: _ .13-ep-nqnt. -, Bridewe·al:th i..1,s ~.•~uffi. of:' mJney ·or definite number of stoek agreed

;· . . :f.! <-· Upon .between the bride groom. :)t.1.s :fader'·.t:zi l.aw ·to . rt · <:an ,not pe · paid .to the · bride _but. to ... the f ater ·· in. .aw· -nd pay:. : . ! ment of bridrice· is not necesa.t°l'.' to the valid1-t:y:o£ marriage That hat; been .relegated to a mere customa.r:y rite wi.thout any legaJ, nignific4nce. ( see Fatuma_Ami v. Ra;hid.i_.Athumani ( 1967). . • .. ;!!Ill . ' .. ' H.c.o. No .. 173 .. and l,QiJ,.uru.si v. diga ('197+°) H;;CD• ·No; 331-. It. does-·:not ap_ear to e to be - ·ad~~r.darice; 1th any· custorna,zy· . t:.ile that brid\P,rice ',,an be paid aJte the marriage has 'broken, ·, down. ·In conclusion, this appeal .fals and I dism.i_ss it wit- .' cost•; I set aside the lower Court's Judgment and-the partie~ are stiH:' ~usband and wife.resulting that the Appellant is- not entitled ' to maintenance and distribution of -~atrimonial properties. / c.G. ~enga . Judge Delivered in open Court this 8th day of April 1 ~,< ef,.;r· C· c 1 ~c('