NA TZHC Dar es Salaam25
The court found no evidence that the respondent was ever married to the appellant, and upheld the entitlement of the respondent to a share of the property owned with her deceased husband.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- NA TZHC Dar es Salaam25
- Parties
- Appellant: Mohamed Hassan Matamba; Respondent: Ashura Ally
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Division of Matrimonial Property, Entitlement to Deceased Spouse's Property
- 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
Mohamed Hassan Matamba
Appellant
Ashura Ally
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to a share of the proceeds of the family property owned with her deceased husband
- 2 Whether the appellate magistrate erred in rejecting the appellant's evidence regarding dissolution of marriage
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no evidence that the respondent was ever married to the appellant, and upheld the entitlement of the respondent to a share of the property owned with her deceased husband.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Respondent entitled to share of proceeds of the banda owned with her deceased husband
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE n.IGH ,"'.OUiLi.' OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAPJf DISTRICT REGISTRY A'L.D1llL.ES.....s.ALAAJYl PC CIVIL APPE-AL NOe 134 OF 1995 O O O O O O • APPELLANT 'VERstfs ASHU RA ALLY • • . . . . . . •. RESPONDENT BlIBESlH, .~. \ J"\ .This is an appeal originating frot:. the decision of ... Mbag}i.i:a: firf~~ry --C~~rt where theY±es-~ndent. w~s awarded inter:.lalia • · . .. · · · the Shs.300,000/= as part of her claim in connection witl:l/pouse--1 i ,, t11e:f<ta-rntly owned with her decea·J;'E/d i-iU:sband. The- ap~~11-a-nifL:. • .. . .•• r. . •:, C~• • . • \' then and also before this court is• one JvTohamed Hassan Mataiir.ba· - the y~~~r b-It9tb~r of the responde~.f-·, s deceased husband• . r. ' I j-\ He lost on appeal at __ the District Cqur_t and has come to .. tl1~~. ~, co1.:1__gt..nn..second· appeal. .. ,,., ·· Mr. 1v1tungwa _learned counsel appeared fo~ the appeliant · :.. .... - . ' and has fi.~ed . : only one ground· ·of. appeal, ~ILe~y~.: .. .; ,'• . Thal·· .the apJ?ellate magistrate . erred _in law .. ' ·J~ct ~ iltl'act in r.ejecting· the· appellant~ s ··e~iden~~- tha.t his rrarrage to' 'th~-- re~;~ndent ~a?, diss9ly~d and therefore upholdi.pg_.,,the: \ri~l- ;~g.;Lstr9-te I s judgement'· and: de~r-~(;., ... th~t th~ r~spondent was erititiec(°!t;·· ~--_~---- •·-· ·. i: i:-.;' ·· '~h~~;e ' .. :.... of tl'le .. proceeds of the band.a of her ex-husband appellant's brother. Fro111 the outs~;t .J must hasten to say :-:.. ..!.. •• , th~ files! ground that as it reads.tends to confuse issues., 'The appellant was or,,;-·.. <:·· \I . ,J. ~- L '"' .i... is the brothe~_'-Jo the deceased Jafari H., Matamba, who w.as ·' ·'· ,,·.:·::, the husband of the Respondent~ It is no where on r~~rd that" · the respondent ever. married the appellant who111 she/referred to as 'mY sher1eji' before th.i.s court 0 ~~---- •..• /2 . . .