19801128 TZHC Dodoma
- Citation
- 19801128 TZHC Dodoma
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 November 1980
- Posture
- Matrimonial Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 November 1980
- Posture
- Matrimonial Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial court had no power to hear the petition for divorce without a certificate from the Marriage Conciliatory Board that it had failed to reconcile the parties; therefore, the decree issued by the Primary Court is set aside.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- decree of separation set aside
- each party to bear own costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Ibrahim Rashid
AppellantKibibi Gwae
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Matrimonial Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the petition for divorce was properly before the court without reference to a Marriage Conciliatory Board
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The matter was not referred to a Marriage Conciliatory Board as required by law.
- Respondent
- Conceded that no certificate from the Marriage Conciliatory Board was issued.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 101 of the Law of Marriage Act
No person shall petition for divorce unless he or she has first referred the matrimonial difficulty to a Board and the Board has certified that it has failed to reconcile the parties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial court had no power to hear the petition for divorce without a certificate from the Marriage Conciliatory Board that it had failed to reconcile the parties; therefore, the decree issued by the Primary Court is set aside.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
- decree of separation set aside
- each party to bear own costs
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 28 November 1980
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.
TZHC
Judgment· 28 November 1980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
AT OODOMA (PC) MATRIMONIAL APPEAL No.9 OF 1980 (From the deci.sion of the Primary qo~t of Singida at utemiaj. irl Ci.vii Case No.7 of 1980) IBRAHIM RASHID 0 . 0 0 e • o o • Appellant (Original Respondent) versus KIBIBI GWAE o • o o o o •. • o • Respondent (Original Petitioner)
JUDGMENT MAINA,_ Jo This 1:s an appeal against the decision of the Primary Court which granted a decree of separation to il:ie respondent. The. husband has alleged that the matter was not referred to a Marriage Concilic.tory Boardo I have peru::;ed the record of the Prinary Court and there is no evidence that the matter was referred '.:o a Marriage Conciliatory Boardo There is no certificate issued by the Board that it was unable to rr:~concile the parties.. The respondent has conceded at the hearing of this appeal that no such certificate was issued •. The provisiens of section 101 of the Law of Marriage Act are mandatory as it is provided th at: "No persoh shall petition for divorce unless he or she has first referred the matrimonial difficulty to a Board and the Board has certified that it has failed to ieconcile the parties". The provisos to section 101 of the Law of Marriage Act do not. apply in this caseo Since the petition was for divorce, the difficulty should have been referred to a Marriage Conciliatory Board before filing the petition in the Court~ The trial Court therf~fore had no power to hear the petition without a certificate from the Board that it had failed to reconcile the partieso '!'he decree issued by the Primary, Court is set aside. This appeal. succeeds and it is allowedo I do ::iot consider it appropriate to make any order for costs since the parties are sti11 husband and wifeo So each party to bi:ar his or her costs. ~\I' (,. '~.vJ WoJ.MAIN.I\
JUDGE . SINGIDA 28 November, 1980 Both parties pre sen to
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.