19940811 TZHC Mtwara1

TI. f1lID HIGH COURT OF -TAl.fZANIA .AT !ffilARA PG MATR. CIVIL £<"):PEAL NO 1 OF 1993 ~ ; LI mr DISTRICT COURT CIVIL 'A?l'E.AL no 2 OF 1992 ORIGINAL URBAN PRINARY COU~1T. <;: VIL CAS8 NO 24 OF 1991 E -~ ; .MARIAM ISMAIL • • • • • • • ~ • AP.PELLANT I, :. ·versus :f.t.lt.3HIDI So HACHilWKU • • • .-.:., .. • • . IilllSPONDElfl' :.. JUD GM-ENT This mat.ter is. before this co-urt on. 1second appeal. ~ The appell~/ ld,fe (:Bi,. MARIAM ISMAIL) _::_had unsucoo_ssfully.i:,otftioned before the Lindi urban ' Primary court f.or divorce seemingly to haw. the court's oJ:d.er ·for tha dissolution . : of h0r marriago with the xespondent/hti.sbar.d ' . (EASHJDI ' s. W,GBtmrrw) • She .did this subsequent to .the respondent's :p:6on:ouncement of_ t.he "tolak:11 on •. ( .. , ' ' 1 ' her. Being aggrieved by the trial oourt!s decision she unsuocesstully ai,p3aled against tl~~t deo'isio~ 'before t~ district, oourt and henoe now the seoom. appeal to. this· bou:r.:t,; The facts· -of !·the oases as established . . in tlie .trial court and as . is' eViclei,.t from the record of proceedings of the first' appellate court and now ., f • • '• ~ -. • • , • -. before this court .are brief ond simple.·. It is also not ~levant to mention that most of the facts· of. the case are not in dis:pute -bat-ween. the parties.· They are as follows. The -~~})8111:mt• 41i!. . -·~- resp~f.dent ~o'tesa !4lam• ' .and that they ..... ... . ., - ' were married under Islamic Fites. It-is oomm.011 grOWJ4 that their ~ g e was oelebrated more ·ihan -1.~ yonrs ago. It is the _assertion of the o.ppellant/wife that o~ 15th.Se~mber 1990 th~; respondent/husband '~:ronourioc:cl •one, 11Tnlo.kn on her. It .is further in her- testimony that u.pon reoei,pt of_.the"Ta.lak11 she ·a1)serve_d the rules of ''Eda 11 • · in accorclanoo: to Islamic law. It is her a.rgv.ment tha.t as the respond.ant did not revoke tbe "Talak1' pr '··:rooall1 her ( 11 rejea 11 _) during h~I,' :t:eriod of ''Eda" the divorce is. irre-v-ocnbl01• . It.· is' he'r ·mab1. argument that, in the ¥light of the fo~going, both courts .bel~w orred .in not ·1.r.ranting her " .. fashki", that is, dissolu.tion of malTiage by court under The Law of Marriage Aot, 197H as um.er:Islmnic Law she wns "defacte" divorced (extra - judicia~ divorce). 2 Aooo:cding to the :peti tioneri s argumont, ns is evident from the proceedings of the subordinate cou.:ct and the :petition of appeal, this was crucial U?Xle:t the Islamic law., . Ur.der·the latter, o. husband who has not revoked ' . the ntalakfi du.l'ing -~ .l') p:;riod. of ''Eda". can ,not talm back'ithnt. wife merel3" been.use ho is desiro1:::; of:p1."'0serVing arrl./ or ·mintuining the marriage. Re has to :reroa:rry the w: f0 and this can only be. ·dono ·after the another man am th.en got divorood by -~110 person. Briefly, this is the ms.in ground of oompla.int by the ap:p0llant/wife al\i;lil'.lSt b.9ti1. courts below. The respondent/husb.:md, for his p;.:i.rt, mnintaimd that the appellnnt had deserted the matrimonial home apparently foJ: no roason ani was refusing to return to him. It w-as this act_ of disobedience on her part. Th:i,t .I inoonood him and under that coopu.lsion or under blim rage pronounced the ntalakfl• It is h:i.s main argur;-ent that in the light of the foregoing _. 1 , • his divorco was rovocable ................ >\,1•;.,..,. - ~- ~ "· ' •♦. ~nd as· ·suoh the marriage c ~ bG salvaged. It behoves roo at thi~· junotu.re to say tl~t, ew-r since the ~w of Marriage ·Aot, 1971 oam· into force a number of problems have mergeq,. regaxding the ool'TOot inter pretation of the provisions of. sectiion 107 (3) of the said Aot, (Aot No. 5 of 1971) which governs Islamio divoroes. !•must also say . that some of the decisions of this court have. in ore way or ·another contributed to. the confusion that :reigns now in this court and those below. As a result there h.p,ve now emerged almost. t ~ district school of thoughts ~ · .-(approaches) wen dealing with Ishmic di:voroe. The first o:ne, is that.arising from the case of Rt..TTAHSI v .. RATT.rnSI (_1975) J.JlT n.55 ~r Kati ti, Ag. J, (as . ~. . ha ,then was). The. second one,., is tha,;t one_ n:r?,-~ing from the decision of HARUNA MAKtr1ATA v. FATU:MA ]§/2g').fi ( 19.78) LRT. 8 J;X)r Samatta, AG.JJ (as he then . was) and the thi.rd. a];>:proaoh ,which is cloSQly ~lated to the second is that \. orgiruting from the case of ASIIUP. .A SALU1 v 1 ALI SAIDI Matr. Civ. App. ·~ No 39 of 1973 - DSM Regist:cy (unxeported) :::er the· late · ·Mwaimsendo, JJ ( as he then was ). It is not il'TOlevant to mention tha.t seoti.on 1.07 (3) of the .Aot, lays down three important conditions wh.i(?11 ~:t be .fulfil:led :before - parties married under Islamic I.aw can secUl'E:l a divorce. It must be shown to the satisfaction of the 'court f'i:rst, tr.Li':l.t parties were married . J. • • in acoordanoo with Islamic Law; sooondly-1 that they have' talmn ,, . their ._matrimonial ' ~ diffioulty to a JifJarriage Conoi],.btory 13oam ano. the said l3oard has oertified that it has faited to :reonoile . . .thm; and third, that, "subsequent to the granting by the Board of a certificate that it bas failed to reconcila the parties, ····••13 r .•· I ',, ··: -. - 3 ... either of them has done any act or tl;,.irg which would, but for the provisions . . of this Aot, ; have dissolved the niarriage in ~coordancc with the Islamic .Law'' (sect ion 1'07 ( 3) ( c) of the Aot, empba'Sis i~1, supplied..): :'· . ',•· It is the ref ore land and clear from the· foreg~ing :that, as.•. soon;as.c the • • " t . ' :, •, ~• : I • _:• '• : • •'" •, #4-, I court is satisfied that the th.roe conditi6ns ha~. bae:n_f~13.filled,-_tn1d/jl'ia,t . . . .. . -··. ttl ..:.;:·, . this has been done in the sequence in which they· a.re en~3:1tedt:'it •~;;h~-~1" ·' . malm a ·finding that the marriage h,a~ irreparably brqlren down and proceed to • I grant . ·a decree of divorce. It appears from j;he prQVi.sions of the '·_subsec;tion .. . ' (section 107 (3) of the said Act) that, as soon as the parties fuUill these conditions, the court b.tls no discretion e~ept to ma~ a finding that the marriage has irreparably broken down an:1':-p:roceed. _to dissolve it'• . There are no provisions for a t:rial and proof of ·any)'matters 11 -·~s in divorce . ' proceedings involving other forms of marriage whio?, a:rE) governe4 by the .••. provisions of subsect 2 of' section 107 of the said Act. i :, . ' . '··· . . . .In the oase of RATTANSI (supra) there....wa~. ,.. sufficient . evidence to show that the par~ies had fulfilled the fi:i-st_.:two_c<;md.itions·sti~-ted urrler·. . : :.:1.•-.., . ·, . subsection 3 of sect:ion 107 of the said Aot. ~t-, neither ~~- th~m had d0~· any "act" on "thing11 which would have dissolved · the mar:riage in acoordance with Islamic law. As the thi:ro. condition had not be~n· fulfill~d., ··the o6u.rt .. had no material on which it could base a 'findi2?€ th.a~ the_ marriage had broken down irreparab4' in order to pronounce a divorce. In oonsequenQe thereof the court dismissed the petition, The oourt,-,(Katiti, llfs• J, (as he then was)) ' . ' stressed that the "aot" or"thing;, must· take -J>la.ce 'betvieen the issue· .of' the . •,J. • ' .• 1.,;· - oertif'ieate by the Board and _the institution.~f divoroe proceedings •. :· ·,.: -~ . ". ·: _t ·'-:;,. __ ··., j l,~ . . In the .ASRURA • s oase ( su;prn) the ~1:tie ~ 1:rere ma~ied -in. ~coordaric<jl ~i;h • '> .• . .. ~·'· • Islamic law. The wife patitiolicd· fo~ diYol'ce a't a loc~i- Primary: 'court· ·on_ the grouni of cruelty. The triaLoaurt rofu~~d-. to gra_nt ._the decree on ·t~ ground that the evidence' was ~oti'ttiffiOient \o 'establi~l~-"CI"\lelty. 'On ap:peai, ; .' . . . . . ' . ' . -~ the late Mwakaaendo, JJ (QS he then ~•) u.r;hoIB.1:ng, th.a; _a?,~al, rioted that the trilll primary court ought I not t() have e..iSmissed .the ~tition -withou~ ............. ' • ' first considering whether'thC3 evi(\e~ available befoxe • . . the court\wae" .. . I of a ~ that would~ but for tho prc,vtsio,w of the Law of ¥.1arriage Ao"t, . . ·.... , . ·.. · ·, : . '' ~- ; . have been held under Islamio law to am~nt to a .valid. grbund fo,r q.;ssolution of a lfiohai:oodan marriage." \ ·· · ;:t.; .. · _. ( emphasis j,,s mire) ~pon re-evJ.lua~or+ of eVidenca the court c~~ to the oonolusion.~hat · suck evidence was suf'fio!ent under Islamic Law, made a :finding that the man-iuge ~d 11 ir:reparably bl'oken _do-mi, and order a divorce. \ f' . ..,. ·,. ' • The oourt in ASRURA' s case ( suplll} l..:ii .,appl,.ied o.~ I~ib~c . law standard o! proof to determi21e whether or not tha r,ia~age ·ha.s brolmn down. ' • 1 ••• '· I ' ~: ...... - .... .~-~ ;; ~ ' ··• ·-· - - 4 ,. In the 'instant oase, the.re fa unoontro'Vt3rted etlden~ that the :respondent/husband he.cl pronounced . n: "talnk11 bh his wife ( the: a,ppellant)j The;re is also eVidence that tb.e former (resporident/husband) did not revoke the sanva~ As the appellant/wife o1faentd the oustotnary I~lamib i'Etla", the "t~1ak1i is irrevocabie, As if tha~ was_ n6t e·n9tig·hj he made no efforts to ,' ...., ' .. ' '·,-.,' ' show o:r im.icate to her fo_rmer spouse that·~ .·:is conttite.,ifor what he ·did:.• a~ that he 'rtow wants her back as a wife~ ·This is borne· ou.t by ihe faot that it is the appellant 'Who wont to tho ooncilli~tory Board and Ultimately P3titionad tho 6ourt for the cl:i.ssolution of their marriage~'( 11'1'alaka fashki. 11 ) and not for ''Talaka Kliula"• Doi:l.ri:ng in mind that tho parties profess Islam, it:· will be nai'\fe to say that by a:pplioatioli. I~lamio laws 1 standal.'d of of proof th.a marriage of ~he :parties hai;' J10:t broken ?,-Omle ' ' ' It :i.s 11\Y cond.id opinion that the oircumstanc0; obtaining in this case entitles tho ,a:ppollant/wifc to havo bchefi t of tho provisions of subsection 3 of section to7 .of tl~o Act (Tho Law of I-1arria&10 Act) •. In . ~ view to hold. otherwise ·will 1)0 wilfull blindness to tho otherwise glaring f aots. of this case~ · In conclusion, I am of the scltlod viow that both courts· belaw ought , "' , L _· not to have dismissed tho petition of divorce" Bef'ore I pen off, I find it 4p~o~une to point out that the Law of .Marriage (Tho S~atute La~) is no~ . there to alienate professing moslems - •, .. '~ s' ' . from their.. religions laws. (~ho H~¥ Qurcin). I am also of the cond.id view . that where. partief? a~. mo_~_lems. it }9ho~d be legally poss,f~le :for courts to give ~rties the benofii;, of tl-J:<3 ~yision of sub-~otton.J of section 107 . ~. ' ' ,,, ' of the said Act, even where the; sequ.eti,001 of the threi:3 · ool1ditfons unde-r the sub.section has not bee~ st1ictly i complie'd with. ; In this way the trua ' . : : ! '' f ' . ' ' ' ',, intention of the legislatu;rc w:i;ll be im_plcmef1ted, while at th.a sam3 tim i ;, :, ' ' the courts will be ad.ministeri~ the · kind of justice which the ordinary ' : ) ' . ' ,' . ' ·Maslem um.e:rstands• ,' , : f .. ·• " · · .' · ; I', . I . ,. . . . .. : , ' In the result, the appeal . :mu.sl .I succee_d.. and is acco:rd.ingly: ~llo;wea., . . . . .. ... . ... eaoh party to· bear its own c9sts.,; fhere and in the CC:.J.rt bel()w•. i·' ' ' ·. ·'\j " ' ' / f /. ,•l.., ., .,. .................. ,, I I 11. - a....9:1 Court. The judgmnt · to be doliwrd to the paJit;ios by the Lindi District court upo1c ocrtification. J.•J• J.IlC!'U1.WA.-~-· .. , ,., JdDam. 11/8)1~94