Preface

176
built up together there is a though position to end that kind of marriage without fair
settlement, and doing so is harm, and if it was a short time marriage we my say that
may be each of them remarriage and form another family but on this circumstances
the lower Court decision was wrong.
For the third and fourth ground: although the suit matter was about divorce
before lower Court but it should have to listen to what the appellant has been
saying because she said that according to page No. 2 of the record:
“We have got the plot of land at that time my husband was working
as well myself in the garden …. And therefore we jointly built the said
compound we eventually transferred to our newly land “
On page 3 she said:
“I was alone working feeding the family as well as paying the
children school fees and clothing for them”
The lower Court did not address Issue of joint ownership, though that was
not the suit matter before it but hence it mentioned the evidence and reasoning was
to be there also issue of ejectment was not addressed in the judgment.
For ground nos. 5 and 6 taken together counsel Sisoho said: the issue of
second wife has an imperator in the relationship of the marriage which mean that
the appellant has committed with the marriage before the second wife came.
For ground 7, I want to argue that the way Court below handled the record
on page 8 there were no inquiry for why the respondent want to eject his own
children from the compound the Court below was wrong to combine the
matrimonial issue and ejectment. There should have been a hearing on that issue
before taking any decision on it.