Msowoya v. Msowoya Civ. Rev.4-D-70; 5/3/71; Biron J.

Msowoya v. Msowoya Civ. Rev.4-D-70; 5/3/71; Biron J.

A worker employed by the National Housing Corporation, Dar es Salaam met with a fatal accident as a result of which an award of Shs. 29,000/- was made for his dependents under the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance (cap. 263). Three claimants appeared; the worker’s father, his widow, and his step mother. In accordance with section 12(1) of he Ordinance, the award was allotted equally between the father and the widow. The father filed an appeal against the allotment arguing that the sum awarded to him was to low; that he was solely dependent on the deceased worker; that he had discharged all the worker’s debts; that the widow had no issue and was likely to remarry. The widow on the other had filed a petition for revision of the award under s. 79 Civil Procedure Code arguing that the magistrate who made the award acted with material irregularity which resulted in injustice; that she should have been awarded the whole or a substantial portion of the sum in issue. In his ruling the magistrate had stated that he took into account that the widow had no issue, that she was likely to get married; and that the ordinance ignored African customary law where by the stepmother would not have been ignored as a dependant. 

            Held: (1) No appeal lay from an award by the District Court. (Citing section 12 (6) of the WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION with an order of the district court in revision if it appears to the Court there was an error material to the merits of the case involving injustice, in the words of the Magistrate’ Courts act, or in the words of the Civil Procedure Code, the court exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” (3) Dependant means a member of the family of the worker, who in relation to a native is any of the person referred to in the First Schedule to the Ordinance, and who was dependent wholly or in part on the earnings of the

deceased worker.  The schedule does not mention a stepmother as being a member of the family of the worker. (4) the magistrate did not made any specific award to the deceased’s stepmother but merely took into consideration that she was dependent on the deceased’s father who in turn was dependent on the deceased. (5) On my view of the evidence and the proceeding as a whole, I am very far from persuaded that the magistrate acted with material irregularity, in the words of the Civil Procedure Code, or that in his apportionment of the award there was an error material to the merits of the case involving injustice, in the words of the Magistrates’ Courts act. I therefore consider that this Court would not be justified in interfering with the magistrate’s Solomonesque judgment and order apportioning the compensation awarded equally between the widow and the father of the deceased.” (6) Petition for revision dismissed.