Preface

58
the rate of D8,250.00 and D25.00 daily thereafter. In addition, the lower court
ordered the appellant to pay the sum of D800.00 for the three menstrual periods. It
is against this background that the appellant appealed to this court upon the
following grounds:
1. That the judgment was wrong in law know that the appellant was
not given the chance to narrate his side of the story which
contravenes the law of natural justice and equity.
2. That the order by the Cadi for the appellant to pay to the
respondent the sum of D8,250 as maintenance plus another sum of
D825.00 as iddah is wrong in both law and the Sharia.
3. That the court was wrong in believing the evidence of the
respondent that she had not seen me for one year was based on
nothing but the mere fabrication by the respondent and I have
witness to prove otherwise.
4. The judgment was against the principles of equity, natural justice,
fair hearing and the Sharia.
The appeal came up for mention on 28/1/2011 with all the parties in court
from which date the same was adjourned to 24/2/2011 for hearing.
On 24/2/2011 when the appeal came up for hearing the appellant was in
court but the respondent was absent. The Panel would have continued with the
hearing in the absence of the respondent in line with Order 7 Rule 22 (1) of the
rules of this court since there is no any cogent reason before the Pane excusing her
absence. The appellant however informed the court that he intends to withdraw his
appeal pursuant to a family meeting they held in that respect that the continued
prosecution of the appeal would not be in the interest of the family. He further