Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19850628 TZHC Mbeya

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the respondent failed to maintain the appellant and committed adultery by cohabiting with another woman, justifying the grant of divorce.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Divorce granted to the appellant

02

Material facts

Parties

Evasolile

Appellant

Not specified

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant argued that after marriage, she was sent to her parents for delivery, did not receive maintenance from the respondent, and upon returning found the respondent cohabiting with a concubine. She sought divorce on grounds of neglect and adultery.
Respondent
The respondent's arguments are not specified in the judgment.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    District Court decision and applicable family law principles

    Grounds for divorce in Christian marriage include neglect and adultery.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to maintain the appellant and committed adultery by cohabiting with another woman, justifying the grant of divorce.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

  • Divorce granted to the appellant

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 28 June 1985

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 28 June 1985

19850628 TZHC Mbeya

IN T12 HIGH COuRT OF TANZANIA jr IB).kTA (nc) NATR.CIVIL APPEAL NO. 22 OFl79 (From the decision of the District Court of Tiikuyu at Tukiru in Nair. Cause No. 2 of 1918) BEFORE: E.H. NDUNGURU Esq. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE EVASOLILE ,0000000*000.000 0 •, •,0006000 APPELLANT Versus 0 .J.UD.GEMENT - The appellant unsuccessfully petitioned -or divorôe in Tukuyu District Court. -. Dissatisfied with the decision of the LerZ Court, she is now appealing to this Court. The parties contracted a Christian marriage in June,- 1975- According to the evidence given rtho appellant they lived togethei happily at Kigulu villao in Hjorn .cDistrict whrc the respondent husband was workin as a teacher for eight months. There.OeD the appellant became nregnant and the respondent ent the appellant to her parets for delivery. The apellant stayed with her parents for two months and she delivered a child. ;iho stayed with her parents for three more months and seeing that she did not receive any niathtenance- from the respondent-husband she went to hue to demand for money and the respondent dilly gave her Shs0 lOO/=, Thereafter., the appellant decided to join her husband. A1'ter a few monthe stay with her husband, the respondent alvi- sod her to go to Tuku.yu to stay with her parents tip to HaTch, 1977, when he could collect her and the apellant heeded the advice. However, the respondent never kept his p:\rniso

for ho nuver wont to collect the appellant in harch, 1977, an he nromisod to do, In Hay 9 1977 7 the appellant decided to follow her husband the respondent at their matrimo- nial home and to her aieazer.;ont, she f -'und the respondent harbouring a concubino in the matrimonial home, hie complained about this behaviour of the respondent before their ton cells loader and subsequently to the Conciliatory Board, The Board failed to reconcile the parties and the matier was eventuallT referred to TuJ;u District Court after the Bod had given the parties a Certificate tCta± effect. -2- g01.yflf jo cc Pep STtfl. .tt.oa. ;o Oouogej(I ttT zoc:u1to 1tT Q.QJOATIOCE . . - VDSI °D3 •s_soo oj se JopJo Ott otLiT . •f1t •oItt I p1113 sp oori t13othJ'a stlTq.l l T,3LjTpj000V OSTMJ0T r O t1iIOp.xO UT q.UtO(i Ott oq prL.O4 0JO1 tlOt2eqOq 'LTYO SflOflUTUOO S Ui)UO(iSOJ EYU[. JO I.Ttlsoa '8 S'8 UMOp uooiq AT9'800AxJT SLITT a xx'81 oq on13ooc OOJOATp poquix.2 qoxot si .w3TTocI OtJ poAoLxqoJ 'q qou uto q.i ..'I2tq. putt uop Uaoxq C.9 S'81 08 1311U aAoTToq O pOpl2flOJOd 1318 I 'OJT' ST1 '8 P '8ti,2IOt * I oq oq sulT'8Io 01.1 wOtM txOu.'o14 xouq.o sitq. tqTi. xnoTA1atoq SnoaoTjnpe qTtl IL O. do.s e qnl o. uot.uou J5:TTs. cr. OAtttT q.ou soop q.uopuodsax 0t. qq ;7osr 1)118 Sc iud 0i. pI?0t J1X8 UOOS ?UtA'8H ..... ............ - 'e1.fl. . -- °xorip13 SflcYrLUiUOO '8tt4iWWOO BOJUOO iOU s -or J.,,Topuodaoa

orq. Teqj, 821'81rçqnuoo - fl SIPJAIT 4q. qsolyc ll.jptx. ouicnouoo :C313J '8 nC si u,.TM 2u -t.s OOL O. ttsJixoo 131 .U01XO'S?t1. 01 lllOt'L± 1q.tM U13WOL1, .01 OOJO.IUtT3 ptEe 118W0M Ctw O JO13Ifi0 Ott S13t[:•oJ •'8J tt8'tSTJt3 SOO —uouo.x oi -cq.un - so -ttm o,jm. otto. t•; 1.- :ti3Lu i.xtW. q.Ou utto topttodsoj - O T44. EtY3; OOuT i-1tt JO qraOO AL1.13, Aq poKfossp txsoq oi qou s't oS IXT)JYJ rTO1.T PtET3 Iflt'8J ttT q3&X113 tq.TV 118pJ000'8 ut tü STIll 0 0 50tq,113d tr.oq XJt. tX0TA0 St UOipittO " an0j wiq U0AT A1708J1tt S'8t oqt OJt JOtflOU'8 p$LIX8W Apox'8 P13t1 aq moo Ut po.q.tupo Jx0pUod8c\i ot, io;ovI suowoTai.op teu PXM Ttmsord a.Iobt sotr'8d tqoq 'p.ri1at sai Ittecid'8 siq. uot.tM '.XOAaMOT.J • OttOO 1fl -t1!os -op ou pip otto squxttd .io o. 4U 01 u8 Itodd'8 O1 U9t 58Wt. Otq. JO SOW tqm.00 JOOT O1.fl. Ut OJ0SS'8 Ot.XflJ OH '-'a t 0 TI. ?ITR.S. IO-'8I. Otfl. U9144 vxiiad OP. ejti GTIT P0UTeTLTT-CLlJ 0A81j O. 1Jfl00 JOMOT oq Ut P0T'8I° OI p118 iljflp'8 P44T'"°° OA'81. O. pOItIOp qxiopuzodsoj 0t. dp118t1 xoto eT.fl. tiç •••PItoJto U Jfl'USq.flOJd JOt15J28qS S'8M Ot(S UOttM JOt:Li4Ut%3W..p ptp:.j.u0puodOoJ e1.fl. JO, 'oi2u rJT!M pu'8 uopuodsoqq JO . : iVIoU1u 8 91109130J Ut8w OM. JOJ ooab4-.i. p JOJ pouoti.toa q.tr19.OdI ei{: OJOJOIOTfl. !JO1S U] -11

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.