The plaintiff-respondent claimed arrears of maintenance and an order for future maintenance in respect of three issues of her marriage to the defendant-appellant. She contended that the father of her children had failed to look after them for five years. The defendant-appellant however denied the version of the respondent and asserted that he had done his duty by his children. He gave details of his performance of his duty as follows:
"I have been sending clothing and paid school fees for the children for the past four years. But I did not send any money for food apart from paying their school fees and buying clothing. This year 1967 I have not looked after them. . . This year I have not bought any clothing for the children and sent any subsistence allowance."
This evidence was given on 15 September 1967.
The appellant described himself as a farmer and it appears from his cross-examination that he had at least one labourer working for him. He did not contend that he was not liable to maintain the children neither did he contend that he was not able to provide the basic necessities of food, shelter and clothing; so that the issue of the plaintiff's ability or inability to provide basic maintenance was not raised and the case seems to have proceeded on the basis that he was able so to do. Again there was no dispute that the appellant gave no money for food and up to September 1967 had done nothing at all during that year for the children.
Clearly a growing child needs much more than shelter and clothing and a father's duty to maintain his offspring is in no way limited to the provision of these two requirements. A child does not need new clothes from day to day, neither does he pay school fees by the day. Indeed I should have thought it obvious that the child's need for food far outweighs the need for clothing or education and is fundamental to its very existence. The appellant however blithely attempted to take shelter behind his claim that he had provided clothing and paid school fees. That attempt was neither commendable nor sensible, and was doomed to failure.
The trial court's assessment of N¢8. 00 for three children seems to me fair and perhaps a little on the low side, and the least I can do is to let it stand undisturbed.
Counsel for the appellant however raised a matter of law which calls for consideration. He argued that the entire proceedings were a nullity because the matter had not first been referred to the Social Welfare Department for t
