fatuma upya vs roman jovit masenge 2018 tzhc 2312 27 february 2018
The trial court correctly applied the presumption of marriage under section 160 of the Law of Marriage Act, as the parties cohabited for more than two years and were regarded as husband and wife. The division of matrimonial assets is the central issue, with the appellant listing jointly acquired properties.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- fatuma upya vs roman jovit masenge 2018 tzhc 2312 27 february 2018
- Parties
- Appellant: Fatuma Upya; Respondent: Roman Jovin Masenge
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 27 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Division of Matrimonial Assets, Presumption of Marriage, Divorce
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Fatuma Upya
Appellant
Roman Jovin Masenge
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the parties were legally married under section 160 of the Law of Marriage Act
- 2 Proper division of matrimonial assets acquired during cohabitation
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court correctly applied the presumption of marriage under section 160 of the Law of Marriage Act, as the parties cohabited for more than two years and were regarded as husband and wife. The division of matrimonial assets is the central issue, with the appellant listing jointly acquired properties.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Division of matrimonial assets as listed by appellant to be considered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DARES SALAAM REGISTRY) AT PAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEL NO. 17 OF 2017 FATUMA UPYA .................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS ROMAN JOVIT MASENGE.............................. RESPONDENT 14/ 12/ 2017/S 27/ 2/2018 JUDGMENT I.P.KITUSI. J. This appeal challenges the decision of Kibaha District Court made in relation to division of matrimonial assets, in Matrimonial cause No. 4 of 2015. Fatuma Upya the Petitioner at the trial and appellant now, and Roman Jovin Masenge the respondent now and then, were husband and wife since 1981 in a union that was blessed with four children. The appellant petitioned for divorce on the ground of cruelity alleging physical assault and harassment committed on her by the respondent. The respondent disputed the allegation that the appellant was his wife although he admitted cohabitation from 1980 to 2001. The trial District Court concluded that the parties were husband and wife by virtue of section 160 of the Law of Marriage Act Cap 29 as they lived under the same roof and regarded as husband and wife for more than two years. The parties did not appear to be overly eager to disprove the presumption of marriage, which is confirmed by the fact that the respondent has not challenged the trial court's finding. It is the division of matrimonial assets that formed the Centre of controversies at the trial and is the essence of this appeal. It is disturbing to observe that division of matrimonial assets has become a fertile are of litigation between spruses. In her testimony the appellant listed down the matrimonic assets jointly acquired by the parties as; 1) . Seven houses, and described their locations as; • One at Manzese Midizini • Three others at Manzese • Two at Kibaha • One at Kibaha Ungindoni 2. Two farms described as being located at; • One acre at Rombo in Moshi • 8 acres at Masaki - Kisarawe. 2