19960415 TZCA Dar es Salaam

:~~.~~~. . .~. _ •- : :.~}~i~!t:f' .'} dt:>'t : : ,;: . ··.·:?{.···· IN THE COURT OF .AJ?PE.AL OF TANZANIA AT D.AJJ ES SALA.AM · (coRAM: ·OMAR, J • A:,-· ·imzxv1ts-;7J~A" , Ancl:=ni3buvA~n•. CIVIL APPEAL.NO. 41 OF 1995 BETWEEN I SIDORI S. BAL.AGA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .APP,;ED1.iANT ·AND ·. CHEZ.ALINA BALAGA ••••• ~-. • • • .. • •. • • • RESPONDENT (AppeaJ. from the decision of the High .. Court ·of Tanzania at·Dar es Salaam) (Mwaikasu; J.) dated the 9th day of June, 1994 in Ci v:Ll App,eal No.~ 71 -~ 1993 /. JUDGEMENT OF•THE COURT i'I .I !· MlrnAVAS, J .A:• ~ f .i·· The pa~~es;in this appef married inf-~ 989 in ., • i . t1 •• · Dar es Salaam where they live~ cohabited. ~e; marriage 1 If.. , is blessed with four childl'en:. According to the evidence tendered in the district court-. the parties lived :happily up to 1990 when· ltiatrimoniaJ. · fricti.on . started. The app~llant had befriended his house-girl, mad? · her pregnant and brought her into the matrimoniaJ. home as a · second 11 wife 11 • The respondent-petitioner protested ·. ,\.:, ....... appelJ.ant·'s decis~on to bring his param~ur., in the _·_ :-.- . }~i matrimonial home and complained to th~fr ~en-celJ:. i~a.ae·r . i: /i)!j{ : mo faiJ.ed to reconcile them and referred their differences -_,_ .::t'i\. ,.to the court whe~ the ~sporident filed divorce prq;: ;:~~~rD ., ,-", .- ..,, ·•. . . . ' ·;_,' 2 . ._ _ _ --~.-,.. - =~----- ·- · ------~-----·--·- -_. ,. - . marriage, division of matrimonial property which she alleged were jointly acquired during tlle subs.istence of the ma.J'.'riage and custody of' the children. · After hearing evidence trOJn both sides· the learned ------s,·enior resident magistrate came to the conclusion that the marriage b~tween ~he parties had irratr.ievably broken down and dissolved the union.· Ap;t>arently matrimonial p1..operty consisted of movable. ··property mainly dome~tic wares, and immovable property, a house situated at Mrtoni in Dar es Salaam. . It was not seriously disputed \both in the court .of J first instance a.nJ, before this coJSrt that· the mat . · · ~inial ~tiro:iierl:y were acqfr<id by the ;iia ll', s in their joJ , ffii'ti rJ?fforts ™ during th~( subsiste11ce o:f •e marriage ... :ffi1 ..I\ _· W it - i ,'. ; .ii' , ~{. The trial court had no di:f':f'icJ:ilty in deciding that . the domestic property - chairs, beds• radios, radio-c:asette -eta. should be equally divided between the parties.· fi.i>· ,. for the house the learned senior resident magistrate said inter alia ... 11 I have considered the fa-ct that it was the resporldent who bieached the contract d:f marriage after 1. 7 years and decided to ma:rr;; ah.other woman contrary to christia.n v9ws., ••../3 ....;.-- . ·J. 3 - -:;;'W.. ; : .-· 'ti .i.~ :- ;N. · s;_c_ong.__J,,y~~.Bz::?W~~e~~L_: __ ·--------~----=- - •,. · decided -t;o bring the -other woman - into the matrimonial house and expressly told the petitioner to ' leave _;the house because she did not want to stay with the.other woman••• The petitioner in this -case is to have possession of the - matrimonial ho11se. The r~spondent with his 2nd wife should move out . ....) _ of tb,e ho1,2.Se and. seek accommodation _el.sew.here"•. With respect to -the learned triai ;magistrate her· -- comments regarding the appeJ.laht/respondertt e;ives the. ?!,_ ~~ ' ilnpre~sion . . that she. gav~ the. matrimonial house . . to theI ~ ; 11et~t:toner/respondent in ol;'der to ~ s h phe appe11a4~/ Jr: ~ - · ~spo~ent for hie! b r i ~ anothertwama.n!into the - 1-i p I ,yi II nttrimoniaJ. iiome ';;; : aba no(i'lbec·ause th~\gt resptndent/petii-11.oner;;? . ~i1 ~ ~j; ' f, ~1 ~;· _ -!· . ffrr, , ~ was f entitled in law to have the whol'e 1' house .to heraeJ!r.· . ,J'.!:'l. i The law regarding divis:Lon of matrimoriia.1 property is now well s.ettled - both by statute and by precedent. Section 114 _(1) of the Law of Marriage Act (No. 5/1971) says inter alia - 11 ~e Court shall hav-e power~ \vhen granting or subsequ~nt to.the grant of or decree of separation or of divorce to .order the division between the parties of any asse-ts acquired by them during the marriage . • . • •/4 i: .. _.·{{'.\ . ...•,, :; ·J, . ' ..... 4 - by their joint effQ;rt.s Qr....:_t_o ,:--:-:_-_--:-c-,--=------=-==-=-=--..;:- - - - - - - - ~ _-,-- -.--- - -- --- ---~- ·-- - o:dfer-tlie Sa.le OJ. any subh asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale.u Sub-section (2) of secti.on. 114 S8:YS: "In exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) the court shall have regard - (a) to the custom of the community to which the parties belong (b) the·extent.of contributions made by each party in money, property, or work towards ti1e acquiring of the assets ••• and subject to the.se consideration shaJ.l incline towards eq:uaj.i ty of division ti_. .. 'l • , -y; {J. ~ ·-) . l . .l .. !·~.·_,' r,'; ; ,, ·, ·'· -. { : That being {::the j_osi-l;ion und~i the~ Law of i'Ja.r&age ~ict" tb:e1··: !~i . J i m1 1t I·. · ~ it . ·,:.. i 1 -~, lea.med ·senior. :i;~id¢;n:t· magist:r-at~ gro:ssly erred i~ ordifr.ing· ·~,, . I' ':;· '"f' '*-1. ,~I ~/ ,t\! . '· .. } . •: . .· • {~: ~.f ji:i ~~· . ., .., t! . '1,... ~t . t1.J-: !fi tf thaJ the respond~ent be in possessfon o[ the matrim~p.ial_J' ; . :r t f. ~ J ', · .• home, all to herself and her children;·: bearing in mind -1 .. that therQ was no dispute that the matrimonial house was . built 'by the parties 1 joint efforts. Distribution of matrimonial assets :between spouses . is.also fully explained in the celebrated decision of thi~ Court in BI~ HAWA MOHAMED V .AJ.;LY sm; CT\TIL -APPEAL NO . .) ~- .. ·.: . : !-:• · 7/1983 (unreported) where it was held . t~t the phrase.· .ttheiJ:' joint efforts11 . and 11work 11 towards the acquiring. 1 of the assets embrassed the domestic efforts or work of husband. and .wife. This decision was quoted and followed by· this Court. in a similar c_as.Q_in-14AJJY: . f v ABOOD S.ALEHE .ABOOD - CIVIL .APPEAL NO~ 1 OF 1992 - · (unreported) • .Comj_ng to custody of the children the learned trial m~gi.strat.e said inte·r alia - 11 • • Q ·. The Court has considered their tender· age 1 .since the petitioner will be in possession of the matri- monial house in vjhich the children have oeen staying, and I see no. reason why they should be separated, custody of all the four childfen is which says: 11 In decj_ding in whose custody an inf an·t; should be placed the paramount .consideration shall be the welfare of the infant, subject to (a) the wishes of the parents of the in:fant and (b) t.o the wishes of the infant where he or she is of an age to express·· ....../6 6 to the customs of the com.:o:mnity to which the parties belong". VI/he~ the decision of the district court_ was ap~ealed .. -~---•...agaj._:n,_§!_t by the appellant/respondent the High Court ·-:--~-- '•.. ~· .... . (Mwaikasu, ··-J-}.,..___pghtly reversed the decision of the di$i;ri-0t ··court reg~rding cu~~odyof ch.ildren in view of the provisio:n~ . . . .. . ... -~ ---- . ____________ oJr-section_ 1,25·-(2) ( b) ··· ·of ·the .L~'!- gt_ _ Mg~r._=i::_~g~__Act.~.a.nd __o.nier-ed- ·---. ..: that the---two.__olg.J3r-cm.+dr.en. .should ~/given opportunity to .. _ . -~ ~~J?.re.as--iiheir independent opinion regarding their custody. Wet with respect, agree with the decision of the learned · judge regarding the question of custody. ·k,. l As for the question of' distribution o{matrimonial ( . u :-.i'. . _ .t I! Ji - -_ .,.... · · ..... -·- ass.~t.s. __ J~-~ ~earned judge upheµ.d -the --~~~.!~~91- <?! -~h.-~___ Jr.;Lal........ ~:..- • ': ~;!i--~.-: __ .,.•, - court that .-the ·tesp.ouden.t/pet:3:tion-e,rr be :in~o-s~.ession of r·---~- :- - ;~ ~¾ \J ·!-., . . . i~: ~~ . . . .. ; _: it . .. . -. -- I l~j . the mattofal house.. As we~!have, we hopt 1'p1y ~ demonstr~ted above the law regarding distripution of -- "g: matrimonial assets between spouses is clearly set out under section 114 (1) and (2) of the Law of Marriage Act, stated t I aQove, and the decision in HAWAis case (supra). In decidi~ the question of distributiort of matrimonial assets between spouses childrens' int~rest is a sub-· sidiary consideration as the matter only concerns the spouses .. Afte-:c consid.e::.:2.bIR :r.eflecti.on and bearing in mind the fact that both parties contributed in the const:ruction· . \ of the house at Mtoni, Dar es Salaam, and the clear ...• /7 - 7 - provi$ions of. section 114 of :-t;1fo· taw o::r=Nla=i.Ti~~ - . ~":_ No. 5/1971 regardiug distribution. of matrimonial assets it is .our Qonsiderod opinion that the following order will · meet the jus·tice of the case: (1) The premises at Mtoni to be valued by a government valuer~ -· . . (2) . rehe appellant -~o pay to the fespondent half of the value of the· house ·within ·one year f'r-0m . . " . ·todat' s date; failing which the · house is td be sold :in a public auction ahd the proceeds thereof to be share.d · equally between the parties. ,, i; ~; . DATM> at DAR ES sALJi this 1 5th . 1996. ·~, .... - . ·1.·.r a ·; ~ - rJ r\ ·' A. M. A•. OMAR . . . JUSTICE OF APPEAL N. s. MNZAVAS JUSTICE OF APPEAL . . ·. D. z.. LUBUVA JUSTICE 0:E' APPEAL. I I certify that this is a t:ru.c copy oi tb.e original. //1·D(~/~ '! \~ . . . .,,.,..,.. I ,· . ( .Bv Mo 1U.tl\1DA } SENIOR,,BEPUTr-REG / . . . . I STRA.."t