Swalehe Urembo v. Sopia Yusufu (PC) Civ. App. 101-D-69; 10/2/70; Hamlyn J.

 

Swalehe Urembo v. Sopia Yusufu (PC) Civ. App. 101-D-69; 10/2/70; Hamlyn J.

The appellant sued the respondent for damages for making his daughter, a school girl pregnant. The trial court awarded damages as follows:-

1. To deflower the girl ……………..                           Shs 400/-
2. To end her lessons in school ………..                  Shs. 300/-
3. To cause her pregnancy (50/- p.m.) ……….       Shs. 450/-
4. To deprive her of ceremonies ……….                  Shs. 300/-

There was no evidence to show whether the child was already born or whether (if birth had taken place) the child was alive. The District Court, therefore on appeal refused to allow damages for maintenance of the child and reduced the quantum of damages to Shs. 500/-

            Held (1) “While it is clear that the trial magistrate has endeavored to reach a fair figure for compensation, I do not think that this mode of arriving at a suitable sum is the correct one. The suit is one brought by the father of the girl for damages for loss of “service” of the girl. The District Court has taken the

More correct of the nature of the action in arriving at a figure which stated to be “for loss of services”. The first appellate court has declined to allow a monthly sum of Shs. 80/- for maintenance of the child, on the basis that nothing is known or on the record as to whether the child was born alive. Had the plaintiff desired such payment to be included, he should have given evidence (either himself or through his daughter who was a witness at the trial) of the facts which might establish this part of the case and ground an Order of the court.” (2) “…… I consider that the sum of Shs. 500/- is probably a fair estimate of the damages incurred.” (3) Appeal dismissed.