19940616 TZHC Dar es Salaam
No valid marriage existed between the parties, so division of matrimonial assets cannot be ordered. Custody of children below seven years remains with the appellant; custody of the older child is with the respondent.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19940616 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Applicant: Pili Mwinyimkuu; Respondent: Fundi Ranadhani
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 1994
- Procedural Posture
- PC Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From District Court Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Custody of Children, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Validity of Marriage
- 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
Pili Mwinyimkuu
Applicant
Fundi Ranadhani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
PC Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From District Court Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to custody of children
- 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to division of matrimonial assets
Ratio Decidendi
No valid marriage existed between the parties, so division of matrimonial assets cannot be ordered. Custody of children below seven years remains with the appellant; custody of the older child is with the respondent.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Custody of children below seven years remains with appellant
- Custody of older child remains with respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AT DAR. ES SALAAM PC CIVIL APPEAL NO~ 128 OF 1992 (From the decision of ~ne Bistrict Court Ilala District at Samora Avenue in C:.vil .i,.ppeal Noa 27 of 1992) Original Civil Case NJ~ 16 of 1992 of Ilala Primary Courto Before Mwankenja: Es< ~ 1 DiRtrict Magistrate~ PILI MWINYIMKUU ••• , n o ~ • o ~ o o 4 o o o o o o o o o t o APPLICANT versus FUN.DI RANADHANI 0 0 u , 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • G O e e O e RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT MAINA, J. This is a second appeal.by Pili Mwinyimkuu against the decision of the district court in a claim.filed in the primary court for custody of children anQ household properties. The evidence showed +.:'.9. t the. appellant cohabited with the respondent, Fundi Rc:.i..m,:1.d:·.·::1n."'... s.nd they had three children. Thert-> was no formal_ mar:,:iag,:, :.-. .- , ~ .:;:r) tL3:.u.. Th,=:- oro.er of the distric : - court upholding the dccisic~ 0~ G~e primary court regarding custody of the childrFn. wac soLadc Th~.0hildren below the age of seven years remained with the appellant, while custody of the older child was gi·-.-en to tlJ.e ·,:2.:::v0ndento If the appellant wishes to be given ma.ir: ~':; .,,Cl_nce :: n-. t> e children she can do so in a fresh suit. Sbe did not ask for maintenance of those , children in her suit in the primaI'.Y court u As regards divislt_:n of m&.tr.imonJal assets, I quite agree with the district court that, as there was no valid marriage between the parties, there can be no division matrimonial assets. The appelJ.ant adrrd tted. before the district court that she ·was married to another man~ ahd they separated in 1981 when her husband issued "talak". There was no decree of di vnrce issued by any court and~ the ref ore, the ma·rriage e • • • _8 / 2 1 ' J,'.". . _ 2' - between the appellant and her husband has not been dissolved. The appellant could not 1 therefore, be married to the respondent while her marriage to her hucband was subsisting. In the circumstances her claim for division of matrimonial assets was misconceived. The ~ppeal has no rrnri t, and it is dismissed. lj I /'·,.-1......, . , Cf I i:. I,· W;, J ~ MA INA JUDGE Dar es SalaaIT.t 16 June 1994 Parties absent.