IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
This appeal comes from Nchalo Magistrate Court. The appellant and the respondent were husband and wife but the marriage was dissolved. Upon dissolution the lower court was called upon to distribute the matrimonial property which it did. The former wife now appellant was not satisfied with the distribution, hence this appeal.
The appellant said that during
their marriage, they built eight houses which are rented out. However it turned out from the evidence
which the lower court accepted that these were not houses. They are mere undetached rooms in the form
of a circle with a tap of water in the center.
These are at Nchalo. The
respondent lives right there. The
appellant told the court that the lower court made no mention of these so
called houses. The respondent told the
court below, that he had three wives in all and a total of 19 children. He divorced the wives to concentrate on
church matters. However he is keeping
all the 19 children. Some of these
children live in those rooms and only four of them are rented out. The magistrate carefully considered the
issue concerning these rooms and he came to the conclusion that it would not be
proper the appellant to have a share.
The respondent lives right there and it would be a cause of great
animosity if she was to have some of the rooms, I agree with this conclusion.
The appellant and the respondent
were husband and wife for 26 years, or so, she must have contributed to the
building of these houses or rooms. She
used to enjoy rentals from the tenants.
It was also prestigious to be a landlady. Now she has lost all that.
Although she cannot have of the rooms, it is only fair that she must be
compensated. In view of the children
the respondent is keeping and bearing the fact that some of them live in these
rooms, it would not be right to order that they be sold and share the
proceeds. It is unfortunate that the
value of this property is not known and further it is not known how much rent
is fetched per month. In the absence of
such information I consider that K20,0000.00 would be sufficient to compensate
the appellant. I therefore order that
the respondent should pay her K20,000.00.
I now turn to the appellant
appeal as regards a tree farm and house hold properties. The list of household properties is long but
the monetary value is very little. In
distributing the property the lower court took into consideration the fact the
respondent is keeping 19 children of course some of these children are grown
ups but the respondents responsibility is big and the children. Certainly the children need the properties
as well. The respondent had 8 children
with the appellant. The appellant was
compensated K10,000.00 of the tree farm and she was also had a number house hold
items. Considering the number of
children the respondent is keeping, it is my view that the appellant had a fair
distribution of these properties.
To this limited extent the appeal
succeeds. Each party to pay own
costs.
Pronounced in open court this 4th
of October 2002 at Blantyre.