19870528 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ~'!'.__l?~E_S SALAAM. APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRININAL APPEAL NO. 73 OF 1984 (ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE N0 0 68 OF 1984 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF l3AGAM0YO DISTRICT AT BAGAMOYO Bef~re K.O. Mohamed, Esq. D/Magistrate) MiiJAJABU SALUMU •• 0 • 0 ••oo••••oooo•••••••• 0 0 0 (I • -i, O " • • • • • • • APPELLANT versus THE UNITED REPUBLIC • • o 0 o o•••••••••••· o Cl e • e e e • • • • • e RESPONDENT J U D G E ~ E N T The appellant, MWaj abu Salum, had been married to 0ne Saidi . Ramadhani but their marriage was dissolved by the primary court at Msata, Bagamoyo ojstrict Qn .17th June, 1980. subsequently, in 1981, the appellant was married t,, another mano There was an appeal t~ the District Court filed by the former husband against the decree nf divorce. The District Court allowed the appeal on the gr~und that the marriage difficulty had n".)t been referred to a rec,,ncHia board as required by the Law of Marriage Act. But when the District c urt made the 0rder, the 0 appellant had already been married to s0me0ne else. The appellant was then charged with uunlawfully getting married t--- m-,re than rme man l' c~ntrary to sect5.'"'n 152(1) of the Law of Marriage Act, 1971~ she was con~icted and sentenced to a fine of. shs .. 1, 000/= rir six m'"lnths jmprisonment in default. The appellant pajd the fjne and she n~w appeals against the conviction and sentence. The main gr0und ~f appeal is that the appellant knew that her marriage had been djss •lved and so when she married agajn she was an I unmarried woman and she was not aware that her f0rmer husband had appealed against the decree of divorce.. Section 152 ( 1) ,..,f the Law ,,f Marriage Act,states as follows:- "A married w,.,man who js a party to a ceremony whereby she purports to marry anothe_r man shall be guilty ·,f an r,ffence." The facts jn thjs case established that when the appellant married the ~ther man she was n~ longer the wife of Saidi Ramadhani because their marriage had been dissolved by the pdmary cnurt. The appellant was therefore not a married woman when she married her second husband. AS an unmarried wr-mati, the appellant was free to marry the 0ther man. She therefore had n-.,t committed any --iffence. With respect, I agree with the learned state Attorney that the djstrict court erred in ••ooo&•oo/2 convicting the appellan~e ? This appeal is allowed. The convicti --,n is quashed and the sentence . js set aside,. It is ordered that the fine whit~.. tthe . appellant paid sh,uld be refunded to her jn full. -~fM\11\Uv WoJc MAINA ' -- JUDGE DAR ES SALAAM 28TH MA~L.~~ Appellant__ ' , absent.