scolastica stanslaus vs bosco maiko 2018 tzhc 2103 19 january 2018

scolastica stanslaus vs bosco maiko 2018 tzhc 2103 19 january 2018

Appellant contributed to acquisition of matrimonial properties through domestic and economic efforts over ten years; denying her a share is unjust. Properties acquired jointly during marriage must be divided according to contribution. Custody of children remains with respondent due to established care, but appellant is granted access.

Citation
scolastica stanslaus vs bosco maiko 2018 tzhc 2103 19 january 2018
Parties
Appellant: Scolastica Stanslaus; Respondent: Bosco Maiko
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
19 January 2018
Procedural Posture
PC Civil Appeal / Second Appeal Before High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property Division, Custody of Children, Divorce
Source Language
English
Family Law Matrimonial Property Division Custody of Children Divorce

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scolastica Stanslaus

Appellant

Bosco Maiko

Respondent

Procedural Posture

PC Civil Appeal / Second Appeal Before High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the properties were matrimonial properties
  2. 2 Whether the properties were subject to division between the parties as per section 114(2)(b) of the Law of Marriage Act
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to a share in matrimonial assets

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant contributed to acquisition of matrimonial properties through domestic and economic efforts over ten years; denying her a share is unjust. Properties acquired jointly during marriage must be divided according to contribution. Custody of children remains with respondent due to established care, but appellant is granted access.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Division of matrimonial property in the ratio of 30% to appellant and 70% to respondent
  • Custody of children remains with respondent