mukesh gaurishanker joshi vs ginte suppliers others 1997 tzhc 212 1 december 1997

mukesh gaurishanker joshi vs ginte suppliers others 1997 tzhc 212 1 december 1997

Section 160 of the Law of Marriage Act does not apply to parties engaged in adulterous cohabitation where both have subsisting marriages; thus, the trial court erred in dividing property under this provision, and the plaint does not disclose a cause of action under the invoked law.

Citation
mukesh gaurishanker joshi vs ginte suppliers others 1997 tzhc 212 1 december 1997
Parties
Plaintiff: Mukesh Gaurishanker Joshi; First Defendant: Gintex Suppliers; Second Defendant: Dhrec Hr Rlsfsatiz (Commissioner for Lands); Third Defendant: Charles Tizeba
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Cause of Action, Presumption of Marriage, Division of Property, Burden of Proof, Adulterous Cohabitation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Family Law Cause of Action Presumption of Marriage Division of Property Burden of Proof Adulterous Cohabitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mukesh Gaurishanker Joshi

Plaintiff

Gintex Suppliers

First Defendant

Dhrec Hr Rlsfsatiz (Commissioner for Lands)

Second Defendant

Charles Tizeba

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the Law of Marriage Act, Section 160 applies to parties in adulterous cohabitation
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in dividing property acquired during cohabitation

Ratio Decidendi

Section 160 of the Law of Marriage Act does not apply to parties engaged in adulterous cohabitation where both have subsisting marriages; thus, the trial court erred in dividing property under this provision, and the plaint does not disclose a cause of action under the invoked law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • Trial court's decision set aside
  • Plaintiff's claims under the Law of Marriage Act dismissed