19830513 TZHC Musoma
The appeal was allowed because the matrimonial disputes were not properly referred to the marriage board as required by law, rendering the trial court proceedings irregular.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19830513 TZHC Musoma
- Parties
- Appellant: Elisha Mulegi; Respondent: Priscilla Okech
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 13 May 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Matrimonial Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Divorce, Matrimonial Disputes, Procedural Requirements
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Elisha Mulegi
Appellant
Priscilla Okech
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the matrimonial disputes were properly referred to the marriage conciliatory board before petitioning for divorce
- 2 Whether there was evidence to establish the respondent's claim of eviction from the matrimonial home
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed because the matrimonial disputes were not properly referred to the marriage board as required by law, rendering the trial court proceedings irregular.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- trial court proceedings quashed
- parties remain man and wife
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
\ IN THE' HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT·· M.USOMA-, (PC) )'IilTRINlONillL CIVIL APPEAL NO. ~18 OF 1981 (Fro.n the decision e>f the Pri:nary Court of Shirati at Tari,ne in il1atri;nonial Civil Case No. 38/81): ELISHA 1/lULEGI . : . .. . ... ... ... ·•. 1-\PI-ELLJINT versus fRISCILLA OKECH ; : .. : . .• . .. . HE'SfONDENT Ju::JGE1ilFNT 1vLUNYFR.A I J. : The respondent petitioned for divorce in Shirati Primary Court. She alleged that the appellant had chasct1 h(1r fron their .natri:nonial ho:ne without• just cause and thr,y stayed apart for 4 years to the _date .. of the petition. The appellant denied tht? all13gation and claimed that it was thct rcsr-ond".!nt hers~lf who dr-cided to go away.· Neith~r party c2ll0d any wi tn~ ss. The trial court unanimously found the. t the r~ spondent had proved her ca.se and granted divorce. Th':1 husband appealed. He opposed the decision of the trial court on two ~rounds. First that he was not called b0.fore the :narriagc raconcilliatory board; S':!condly that th<Jre was no evidence to establish the ra.spondent's clai:n that she wa~ evicted fro:n :natri:nonial ho:ne. Fo.r the first issue there ,.is a docu.nent written by a Kyariko Baraza la Usuluhishi dated 8/12/80 to the effect that they w~re referring the wo:nan (respondent) to court as thr-y ware unable to get the husband (appellant)', whose whereabouts waro unknown. The appellant replied that he has been teaching in a Ukerewe Primary School where the respondent left hi:n and she kn~w the place: The board deliberately failed to s~n~on hi:n. I agree with hi:n: Therefore their desputes were not heard by the board. Th<? law providcrn that no petition for divorce unlr.ss the :natri:nonial desputcs have first be~n r1'!ferred to tho marriag43 board and the board failed to reconcile the spouses. This irr~gul.arity is enough tc dispose of th~ app8al. I quash th'! procf-ledings of the trial court and arA still man and wifP. No costs. MUSO:ilA 13/5/83 ./ I· .I '·, .rr r ,. , I.· ,) ,..