Preface

175
2. The Cadi failed to take a count that the dispute between the parties was
about were married for more than 40 years.
3. The Cadi failed to appreciate that the dispute was about the ownership of a
compound.
4. The Cadi failed to appreciate that the appellant was claiming a joint
ownership of the matrimonial home / compound
5. The Cadi failed to appreciate that she was the bread winner of the household
from 1981 when the respondent got blind.
6. The Cadi failed to appreciate that the from 1981, when the respondent got
blind, five other children were born of the said marriage and relationship.
7. The Judgment of the Cadi did not represent or address all the issues that
were before the Cadi for determination.
8. The appellant did not have a fair hearing before the Cadi.
Then the appellant applied for the following reliefs:
1. An order setting aside the Judgment of the Court below.
2. An order for re hearing of the dispute between the parties.
3. Any other order that the Court deem fit.
At the hearing of the appeal on 28 th June 2011 the parties were present; the
appellants were represented by Counsel Mr. Edrisa Sisoho and the respondent has
no counsel he stood for himself the learned counsel Mr. Sisoho submitted as
follows:
For the first ground of appeal, the lower Court did not encourage the parties
for reconciliation before coming to divorce and if there was reconciliation that did
not reflect in the record.
For the second ground, the lower Court was to put in its account that the
spouses were married for more than 42 years, the family and the property were