Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

elisafani moses sawe vs rahab e sawe 2010 tzhc 429 18 august 2010

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The respondent did not contribute to the acquisition of the house or other assets, so no division is ordered. The welfare of the children requires they be placed in the custody of the petitioner, who has sufficient means to care for them.

Court disposition

judgment for petitioner

Orders

  • No division of house, cars, or household items; all remain with petitioner.
  • Custody of Moses Charles Sawe and Valentina Charles Sawe granted to petitioner.
  • Respondent to hand over children to petitioner immediately.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Elisafani Moses Sawe

Petitioner Counsel: Mr Rweyongeza

Rahab E. Sawe

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Year Marriage Contracted: 1,997
  • Year Moses Charles Sawe Born: 1,998
  • Year Valentina Charles Sawe Born: 2,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Matrimonial Cause / Ex Parte Judgment After Dissolution of Marriage, Division of Assets and Custody Determination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Petitioner argued that the house was built from his own business proceeds before marriage, cars and household items were not jointly acquired, and that the respondent has hidden the children causing him mental torture. He sought custody of the children and no division of assets.
Respondent
Respondent alleged joint acquisition of cars and household items and sought division, but did not appear to substantiate her claims.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Tanzanian matrimonial law

    Matrimonial assets are divided based on contribution of parties during marriage.

  2. 02

    Tanzanian family law

    Custody of children is determined by their welfare and best interests.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The respondent did not contribute to the acquisition of the house or other assets, so no division is ordered. The welfare of the children requires they be placed in the custody of the petitioner, who has sufficient means to care for them.

Obiter and limits

  • Children are now old enough to live with their father comfortably.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Court disposition

judgment for petitioner

  • No division of house, cars, or household items; all remain with petitioner.
  • Custody of Moses Charles Sawe and Valentina Charles Sawe granted to petitioner.
  • Respondent to hand over children to petitioner immediately.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 18 August 2010

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 18 August 2010

elisafani moses sawe vs rahab e sawe 2010 tzhc 429 18 august 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT PAR ES SALAAM MATRIMONIAL CAUSE NO. 2 OF 2002 ELISAFANI MOSES S A W E ......................... PETITIONER

VERSUS RAHAB E. S A W E ....................................RESPONDENT f _ _ Date (of last order -18/6/2010 Date'of Ruling - 18/8/2010

EXPARTE JUDGMENT Shangwa, J.: On 25th October, 2005, this Court dissolved the parties marriage on grounds that it had broken down irreparably. There remained the issue of division of matrimonial assets i.e house No.572 Mbezi juu plus cars and households. Also there remained the issue of custody of two children namely Moses and Valentina who are in the custody of the Respondent. The Respondent appeared in Court for the last time on 9.2.2009 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 15.4.2009. On that date, she did not appear in Court. So, the matter was adjourned for hearing on 25.5.2009 with an order that she should be notified to appear but she did not appear on that date. The matter continued to be adjourned until 26.3.2010 when Mr Rweyongeza for the Petitioner stated that the Respondent had lost interest in the matter and requested the Court to proceed in her absence, and prayed to prove the matter by affidavit. I granted his prayer and ordered that he should file the affidavit on 16.4.2010, and it was so done. This affidavit was sworn by the petitioner Elisafani Moses Sawe (Mbise). With regard to the matrimonial assets, the petitioner avers at paragraph 9 of his affidavit that there are no cars and household items which were acquired jointly as alleged by the Respondent in her answer to amended petition for distribution between him and her. At paragraph 10 of his affidavit,

the petitioner avers that there is only one house which he built from the proceeds of his private business before he married the Respondent. With regard to the custody of children, the petitioner avers at paragraph 13 of his affidavit that they were blessed with two children namely Moses Charles Sawe and Valentina Charles Sawe. At paragraphs 14 and 15 respectively, the petitioner avers that the Respondent has hidden his two children whom he has not seen for a long time something which has caused him to suffer mental torture and that it will be in the welfare of both children to be placed in his custody. Having considered the petitioner’s averments in his affidavit, I am convinced that the Respondent did not contribute anything in the acquisition of house No.572 Mbezi juu except that it was built by the Petitioner through his own money and action plans. Also, I am convinced that the cars and households were not acquired by the parties through their joint efforts during the subsistence of their marriage. The Petitioner who married the Respondent in 1997 when they contracted a Christian Marriage at Tabata Lutheran Church bought those items by using his own money for his family use. I cannot therefore pass any order for sharing the same between them. With respect to the Petitioner’s averments concerning the two children in issue, I think that it is now the right time that they

should be placed in his custody. Moses who was born in 1998 is now about 12 years old. Valentina who was born in 2000 is now about 11 years old. This means that these children are old enough and they can live with their father (Petitioner) confortably. The Petitioner has sufficient means to care for them until they reach the age of majority. The Respondent who has for so long been denying the petitioner to visit them or have access to them should hand them over to him immediately. It is so ordered. Thus, I enter judgment in favour of the Petitioner. Each Party to bear its own costs. A. Shangwa

JUDGE 18.8.2010 Delivered in open Court this 18th day of August, 2010 in the presence of the Petitioner and in the absence of the Respondent. 18.8.2010

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.