19871127 TZHC Dodoma
Refusal to cook and refusal of sexual intercourse by a spouse is a grave form of cruelty that goes to the root of married life and justifies the grant of divorce.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19871127 TZHC Dodoma
- Parties
- Appellant: Ntika Matonyi; Respondent: L. Kingira J.
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Divorce, Cruelty, Marital Obligations
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ntika Matonyi
Appellant
L. Kingira J.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's conduct constituted cruelty justifying divorce
Ratio Decidendi
Refusal to cook and refusal of sexual intercourse by a spouse is a grave form of cruelty that goes to the root of married life and justifies the grant of divorce.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Divorce granted stands
- Each party to bear their own costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THB HIGH COURT O:F 'I'ANZ,ANIA AT DODOMA, (re) HIGH com=rr NATB.IJ\10NIAL CIVIL A.P?.aAL NO. 1 CP 1984 (From the decision of Mi:crimorna_L vlVl 1 A--,r • , • • 7::,,::, 1 1T\To f'I.• - ,,,.r e,J, • ' 1 •- 86 of 1981 of the District Court of Dodoma Distric·t at Dodoma Original Civil C9se No. 25 of 1981 o·f' the Prim·~ry Court of Mundemu) NTIK:'\. MATONYJ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• APPELLANT Versus L12.::}·AKING IRA. J. ·t he respondent petitioned for divcrce in the Primary Court <t Nundemu alleging that his wife, the appellant, was refusing ~o cook for him and refusing him sexual in,tercourse. The parties are advanced in age and their marriage ~hich has subsisted for nEmy years was without surviving issue. The Primary Court found for the respondent and granted divorce accordingly. The appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the District Court and further appealed. There ws.s overw· ,1elmin,{ evidence f:rom the respondent's 1 side that the sppell~nt had treated the ~~snonient with extreme cru.elty. Both Courts below accepted thqt evidence ~nd I c~nnot s3,y thqt they err?d ~s the a7pell~nt's d9fence consisted of bqre Jeni:J.ls. Speaking for myself 1 tooi I think th"'t refus3,l +o cook and refusal of sex ;ql inte-rcou~~se is •:1 grqve from of c-ru,':!lty ·wbich goes +;o tl-1e ,,.oot of '" .'1.Y m"'~"' ied J :ife. I gm 1 therefore of the visw th t divorce w-d pronerly ~~~n+ed fn this c1se and I dismiss the qppeal. The parties will beStr their respective cof;ts h9~-,e 3,nd below. ., DODOMA. 27 November, 1984.