mukesh gaurishanker joshi vs gintex suppliers others 1997 tzhc 205 1 december 1997

mukesh gaurishanker joshi vs gintex suppliers others 1997 tzhc 205 1 december 1997

Section 160 of the Law of Marriage Act does not apply where parties lack legal capacity to marry and knowingly cohabit in an adulterous relationship; the trial court erred in relying on this section and in shifting the burden of proof to the respondent without sufficient evidence from the petitioner.

Citation
mukesh gaurishanker joshi vs gintex suppliers others 1997 tzhc 205 1 december 1997
Parties
Plaintiff: Mukesh Gaurishanker Joshi; First Defendant: Gintex Suppliers; Second Defendant: Dhrec Hr Sfsatiz Commv Svon; Third Defendant: UK. Charles Tizeba
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Presumption of Marriage, Division of Property, Burden of Proof, Adulterous Cohabitation
Source Language
English
Family Law Property Law 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 3 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 Sfsatiz Commv Svon

Second Defendant

UK. Charles Tizeba

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 160 of the Law of Marriage Act applies to division of property acquired during unlawful cohabitation
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in relying on presumption of marriage
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proof regarding financing and acquisition of property

Ratio Decidendi

Section 160 of the Law of Marriage Act does not apply where parties lack legal capacity to marry and knowingly cohabit in an adulterous relationship; the trial court erred in relying on this section and in shifting the burden of proof to the respondent without sufficient evidence from the petitioner.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Trial court's division of property set aside
  • Petitioner not entitled to disputed property under Law of Marriage Act