19751015 TZHC Musoma
The appellant's change of story and deliberate desertion evidenced an intention to permanently end cohabitation, justifying the grant of divorce.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19751015 TZHC Musoma
- Parties
- Appellant: Miyaki d/o Kero; Respondent: Nyamosoli Ogira
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 15 October 1975
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Primary Court Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Divorce, Desertion, Customary Marriage
- 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
Miyaki d/o Kero
Appellant
Nyamosoli Ogira
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Primary Court Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant deserted the matrimonial home
- 2 Whether the marriage had irreparably broken down
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's change of story and deliberate desertion evidenced an intention to permanently end cohabitation, justifying the grant of divorce.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
.T AT MANZi\. (pc) CIVIL APPEIL iiO. 107 OF 1975 (Faoi T. DiCIbiOi 01.' T:.UL FiIii1 COL11 OF iIGETI DISTRICnI I' IiIZL I CIvIL Chi JO. 85 O' 1974). MIYA±(1 D/O KERO. . . . . . . V. . . . ppjLLcT versus iYMOSGLI diGIa. . ..................LrcNLET. JTJLGLErT. LUGAKINGLiLj, AG.J.: The appellant would appear to be funny. In the Primary Court at Ikizu, Musoma District, she strenuously resisted her nusoand's petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. It was testified that she h( left the n:atrimoni-al home-and w'eiit to. establish her own homestead v are she lived. She denied this sain, her new homestod could be re arded as the respondent's, who ws welcome to go and cohabit wit her there. She stated that the reason for moving away was because f her co—wife's unneighbourly attitude. The Primary Court was not irnpr ssed and rantd the divorce Ir-ed for, iow in her a;..real the appellant nas not souht to reiterate her ploadinbe below. She had denied cvcr to have been married to the rcs'oridcnt. She alleged that the respondent has been endoavouring -to drab iler by force of arms wi -thdut success. This was a ustoñiery union ey inheritance. Th, epc.ollant was ;reviously married to the re anoent's orotner. no, herself, testified before the 1oc3r court tdat upon the doath of her husband sh va inherited by the e;poieLtt The latter added ht the- coh1ited for more than a jeer beiorc tile a:;ellant aeocondcci to st up her pwn nomestead. I am uno1e to see the intellidence of this aj:e-a1. I thine the fact that the appellant has decided to set up a di±fcrcat story now is evidence that she has Ocen in deliberate desertion, with the intention permanently to brind- coha.itation to an end. In that cvent I think the lower court was justified in holding that the marriae had irreparably broken down nd in r.anting divorce as prayed. For the above reasons, I will, as I do, dis:;iss this a;pdil. There will be no order as to costs, , MUSO1d. K.S.K. GAK]2C4 ZA 15-10-7 5 ACTING JUDGE'