Murisho v. Halima (PC) Civ. App. 114-D-68; ?/7/71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

Murisho v. Halima (PC) Civ. App. 114-D-68; ?/7/71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

The appellant/husband appealed against the order of a district court awarding the respondent/wife arrears of maintenance of Shs. 10,800/-. The respondent had claimed that she had lived with the appellant’s five children at her parents’ home for six years. The figure of Shs. 10,800/- was arrived at by taking the sum of Shs. 30/- as the monthly bill for maintaining one child and multiplying this by twelve to have the figure for one year and by further multiplying this by 30 that is the number of five children multiplied by six, the number of years the children stayed with their mother. Against this decision, this appeal was brought.

Held: (1) “Without being dogmatic on the matter, while I concede that there may be circumstances in which I is possible for this Court to order one of the parties to a suit to reimburse the other for expenses incurred for the advancement and maintenance of he children of the marriage, this Court cannot agree that it would be entitled or justified to do so capriciously. Evidence must be led to establish the specific claims lodged and it would in my judgment, be absolutely wrong in principle t make an order for maintenance merely on the unsubstantiated word of the claimant.” (2) “However here exists in East African tribal communities in Tanzania an accepted customary practice, which for want of a better term, I will hereafter call “maintenance”, where by a man who has allowed his wife and children to stay at his father-in-law’s home for a long period, is required to pay a token sum of money or a head of cattle as a means of thanking his father-in-law for the expense and trouble that he had to undergo in keeping his children. The nature that this token takes and amount that may be paid varies from tribe to tribe but I think it cannot be disputed that such a traditional payment will not be anywhere near the exorbitant figure arrived at by the District Court in this case. One of the assessors who sat with the District Magistrate gave he opinion that according to the Masai custom the appellant would only be required to pay to the respondent’s parents one calf for undertaking go care for he rand the children. The respondent has admitted before this Court that traditionally the appellant would only e required make a token payment to thank her parents for keeping the children for the period of six years. She has suggested the figure of two or here heads of cattle as the amount that would be paid in the instant case. On a fair view of this case I accept the opinion of the assessor as a correct statement of the Masai customary law on the issue of maintenance and direct that the appellant should pay one head of cattle to the respondent’s parents as a mark of gratitude and thanks for the trouble they took to care for his children. To this extent this appeal is allowed.” (3) Appeal allowed.