The Appellant’s marriage to the Respondent was dissolved by Chamwino Primary Court in Civil Case No. 38 of 2005. The Primary Court also ordered for the distribution of matrimonial properties in that regard, the Respondent was entitled to 1/3 of the value of the matrimonial house and the Appellant 2/3 of the value of the same. Other properties/items were to be divided equally to the parties pursuant to the order of the trial court.
The Appellant was aggrieved by the decision of the trial Primary Court on the distribution of matrimonial assets and the award of the custody of children to the Respondent. On appeal, the District Court ordered that the matrimonial house should exclusively be owned by the Respondent because she was facing hardship and the house would help her in taking care of the couple’s four children who the Appellant had abandoned and moved on to live with another wife. The Appellant successfully appealed to the High Court.
Following that decision of the High Court, the Respondent opted to institute a civil suit against the Appellant before the trial primary court in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2011 seeking for the maintenance of their four children and division of matrimonial property. The Appellant’s evidence as to his being incapable to provide the Respondent with what he termed a huge amount for maintenance did not persuade the trial primary court for it ordered him to pay the Respondent 1/3 of his salary (Tshs. 283,444/-) as maintenance for the four children. At the same time the trial primary court awarded the matrimonial house to the Respondent together with some properties therein to enable her to take care of the four children of the marriage. The Appellant was not satisfied with the decision of the trial Primary Court. He filed an appeal before Dodoma District Court vide Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2011.
In its inquisitorial and detailed decision, the first appellate district Court ruled in favour of the Respondent and found that the trial court was correct to award 1/3 of the Appellant’s salary to the Respondent and that there was no need of further inquiry on the salary of the Appellant because it was the Appellant who stated that his salary is Tshs. 850,000/= and the calculation ought to be made from that amount regardless of the Appellant’s other personal commitments. The first appellate District Court found that the trial primary court was right to rest the custody of the children to the Respondent because there is evidence that at the time when the marriage started to climb rocks, it was the Appellant who decided to leave the matrimonial home leaving the Respondent and children in the house without his care or assistance. In all that period of the conflict the Respondent was able to care for her children.