Pius v. Tehabyona (PC) Civ. App. 13-M-70; 15/5/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

 

Pius v. Tehabyona (PC) Civ. App. 13-M-70; 15/5/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

The appellant was ordered to pay Shs. 2,000/- as maintenance of respondent’s child of which he was alleged to be the father, by the District Court. The primary court had dismissed the claim on the ground that there was no evidence implicating the appellant with paternity. The decision of the District Court was appealed against on the grounds that: (a) the respondent did not prove that sexual intercourse had taken place between her and the appellant; (b) there was no reason for the District court to interfere with the primary court’s decision which was based on issues with the primary court’s decision which was based on issues of fact; (c) Shs. 2,000/- was excessive and unproportional to the circumstances of the case.

            Held: (1) “The claim was brought under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1963 and as such Government Notice No. 279 of 1963 which covers Bukoba district applied. Under that Government Notice the respondent did not have to prove that the appellant was the person who fathered the child. ………. Where a woman, as was in this case, names a man as being the father of her child, he may not deny paternity unless he proves that he had no sexual intercourse with the woman.” (2) “The burden of proof as to paternity under Government Notice No. 279 of 1963 is totally different from the burden or proof under the Affiliation law is based on the well-known principles embodied in the English Bastrardy Amendment Act, 1872. These principles are to the effect that a man can only be adjudged to be the putative father of a child if the evidence of he mother is corroborated in some material particulars by other evidence to the satisfaction of the court. Under Government Notice No. 279of 1963 the mother is not loaded with such heavy burden of proof to win her claim. All she has to say is to mention a man as the father of her child.” (3) “The appellant failed to prove that he did not have sexual connection with the respondent, moreover there was ample evidence of opportunity for such connection as the appellant was the respondent’s teacher at a school and they were neighbours in their village.” (4) “The amount of Shs. 2,000/- is reasonable and fair taking into account that it is to be paid over a period of five years.” (5) Appeal dismissed.