TORGINDI V. MUTSWENI

TORGINDI V. MUTSWENI 

In this case Torgindi accused Mutsweni as a causative of his marriage breakdown and as a result the dispute arose and the drumming arose. Each part was ordered to compose and sang a song as loud as he could so that the village could hear. Mutsweni was not a good composer he ordered a person to compose for him the drumming started and went for 3 weeks everyday.The village elders then opine if the drumming continues it would end up to a fight so the parties were called to prepare and sing a song before the village elders.







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

R v. CHEPE KALANGALI(1973) LRT 77 failure of discharging duty of care

In this case the accused failed to take care of the deceased child who was in his custody and who was suffering from cold . As a resultant exposure to cold hastened the death of the deceased. The court Held: Mzanva. J ( As he was then was) the accused was found of being guilty of manslaughter within the meaning of 203 of the penal code. He observed that for a person to be guilty of manslaughter by negligence there must be a proof of that he had duty of care , that he failed to discharge thereby causing the death of the deceased. So from this principle that led to the development pf law of ngligence is that breach of duty is a crime.
Read more

R V. PALAMAMBA FUNDIKIRA (1947)EACA 96

R V. PALAMAMBA FUNDIKIRA (1947) EACA 96 In this case a trial by ordeal was conducted to discover who has by witchcraft caused the death of 11 children of the first appellant. Four women were accused as the causative of death of the children and to prove their innocence they were subjected to a tradition test of drinking a tradition medicine called MWAVI. By itself mwavi is not a poison but once taken by a person with an evil mind it becomes a poison. Upon taking upon taking two women died and other two vomited.
Read more

Karanja Waihenya vs. S. Marai (1981)TLR no 86

 The facts are that the former tenant (Paul kamau) bought a beer store business from appellant (landlord), he converted a house into a lodge which he obtained a license , later he added a bar business thereon and he got a license for the same. The trial court allowed tenant claim in part. The land lord appealed and the tenant cross appealed . Claiming the disallowed part of his claim. The court of appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross appeal the court was of the view that; The list almost all the item are either buit in, or fixed to the land and they constitute fixture. To constitute fixture the article the article mentioned should be let into or united to the land or be substantial connected with the land  or building that is build on it. Therefore wash basin , water tapes thereon ceiling boards fixed to the  house can be termed as fixture.
Read more