19860702 TZHC Mtwara
The parties had been divorced for six years, making the division of matrimonial assets appropriate. The first appellate court erred in finding the division premature.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19860702 TZHC Mtwara
- Parties
- Appellant: Zainabu Mshamu; Respondent: Shuji Mussa Likoko
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 2 July 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Division of Matrimonial Assets, Divorce
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Zainabu Mshamu
Appellant
Shuji Mussa Likoko
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether division of matrimonial assets was premature in absence of evidence of divorce
- 2 Whether the parties were divorced at the time of the suit
Ratio Decidendi
The parties had been divorced for six years, making the division of matrimonial assets appropriate. The first appellate court erred in finding the division premature.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Judgment of the first appellate court quashed and set aside
- Judgment of the Primary Court upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
' {l?C) N,,TRIIiONL,L CIVIL ;..l:'i.JE1-1.L NOo 3 OF 1982 From tlK t::..:cisi0n of the District Court of N<::wala at NGwO:lu :i_n Civil i,ppeal Noo 29 of 1981 Original Civil Case No. 28/81 of the Mahuta ~r.Court at Nt:wala Z,'-\IN,~BU i ~SL,\i iU o. • o. o • • • o o o • o. o • o e o o o ..• ;-,.J?J:'ELL,-,NT· Versus SHUJi--.I HU.:.,S,"-, LII(OKO ••• o. o. • • o. o o. • . o o oRl:..SiJONDENT .-I_UDGM.E.NT ZA~NABU MS Hi.HU ,;ucc.l SHUJi-.I MU.;;S./-\ LI KOKO fc,r di vision of mat,tmonial a;,;scts i.·.,.c-; won the suit. The Mahuta l-'rimary Goijrt ordered tho:c she. be given sc,ll}e of the pro9erty. ~biijjai Mussu su-::cc:...sfully G,t--}_:,E:aled to the Newala District ~•Ol.l;;, The fi:..•st ~-._... e:11:ite cc..urt had stated that as there '. nad been no ~viLknc0- c,f divorce by a cc,urt of lc::.w, the d,V~~ion of matrir,10ni .::1 .:ii::sE:tS was premature. Zainabu ~hamij j,s now :'.)_:cdin0 to this Court against the decision of the fi_rst n_:;_,cll c:.t<;.: court. 1'1\e reasonin0 of :chc ufl!:-'Cllate court was s0und and iwJ,♦)' based on the L.::1-I'. HowE:!ver, the law was being appl.ied en a case whose facts are not as those conceived ~y the first a~?ellate court. The suit was for division of mat:imonial assets ~'._,1d on the record there, comes up several fa~~~ showing that t~~ -~rties are no longer married. They had divorced a lens ti~e ago. It is noJ six years. The P;i,mary Courts dctr.)rmini..,tion of di vision of motrimonial assets was there:forc :Ln c;:;-'7r • ~ 2 The J"'lahutn 1, rir,kry Court dealt With the case admirably. EviJencc fc.;i.· thee plaintiff and defendant was analysed and conclusions rcachede The ialuation of thci assets was done o.ns."\ lt<..1L..:rmination of who gets what 'made, giv:i.ng rl;.:.:.sons. I GC~, no rE:.!asc,n for varying this worko . hccordi n ;2.y the ;:1.· __.12d by :;::.ainab Mshamu is allow·ed with ,, c;::oste, The judgm,.,nt of the first ap.,,ellate c0urt is cnfaSh~d and its orue:r-s set nsideo 'The judgment of the ·P(ima,r Court is UJhcldo Yahya Rubama Judge 2.17 .. 86 S,<j;_af: RUBi-.Mh, J., t'arties o.b.scnt. Judgement _Je:livGred. \~-~ ,, ·---....., ~--- .• ···''\":'.. ~ \ : , ("·'--"-·-----:;,.. Y ~hya Rub'ama Judge 207086 I •