Barka Saidi Salumu v. Mohamedi Saidi. (PC) Civ. App. 181-D-69; 24/2/70; Hamlyn J.

 

Barka Saidi Salumu v. Mohamedi Saidi. (PC) Civ. App. 181-D-69; 24/2/70; Hamlyn J.

The appellant had sued her husband, the respondent Mohamed Saidi, for a divorce. She had left the respondent in order to go and live with her parents. The trial court dismissed the action making a finding that she could purchase “a divorce from her husband” upon payment of the sum of Shs. 4,000/-  On appeal to the District Court it held that she was entitled to a “kula” divorce from her husband  on the same terms as set out by the Primary Court. The woman made certain allegations against her husband, but called no witnesses to support her complaints. The trial court found that such evidence as she herself gave did not suffice to establish the facts alleged.

Held: (1) “I fully agree with the opinion of the District Magistrate that it is for a party to present his or her own case to the Court and not for the Court to make a case for the litigant. In the instant case, the woman made certain allegations against her husband, merely relying upon the evidence which she herself gave; she called no witnesses to support her complaints, and thereafter, because the trial court found such evidence did not suffice to establish the facts which she alleged, the woman on appeal contended that it was the duty of the court to call corroboratory evidence. This clearly is not so, and the litigant should produce what evidence there is to establish her case. It is only rarely that a court will, of its own motion, in cases such as this seek to clarify an issue by requiring an additional witness.”  (2) “The District Court Magistrate was correct in the matter of his finding as to the “kula” divorce, and that the consideration therefore is based upon a bargain between the parties. Nor has such amount any relation with the amount of the dowry.” (3) “The appeal must consequently be dismissed, the appellant being at liberty to accept the terms of the “kula” divorce or to live apart from her husband, she not in such case being entitled to maintenance. As the District Court correctly held, it had no power to order that the woman resume co-habitation with the respondent.” (4) Appeal dismissed.