Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
High Court nullified lower-court matrimonial orders and ordered a retrial after finding the courts failed to apply the presumption of marriage procedure properly.
The High Court allowed a civil appeal, holding that the claim was really for investment on land and the Primary Court lacked jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal held that matrimonial property cannot be divided without a decree of separation or divorce, and a presumption of marriage was unavailable here.
Even though the presumption of marriage was rebutted, the parties' long cohabitation and joint acquisition of property entitled the respondent to a share in the assets under section 160(2) of the Law of Marriage Act. Evasive denials by the appellant in pleadings amounted to admissions, supporting the finding that the properties were jointly acquired.
Source excerpt
Section 160(2) of the Law of Marriage Act does not apply to division of property where the presumption of marriage is rebutted and one party is already in a monogamous marriage; thus, the appellant is not entitled to division of property under matrimonial law.
Source excerpt
There was no formal marriage between the parties, but a presumption of marriage existed due to cohabitation. The trial and appellate courts erred in including the house at Lindi as matrimonial property; it was a gift to appellant's parents. Division of remaining properties should be based on actual contributions, with appellant receiving 30% of the house and business at Miramba, and 25% of the coconut farm at Lindi.
Source excerpt
The respondent failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, any contribution to the acquisition of the farm, and thus is not entitled to a share. The trial and appellate courts erred in treating the farm as a jointly acquired matrimonial asset.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld unequal division of matrimonial property and child maintenance, finding the appellant proved contribution only to one house.
The farms were jointly acquired during cohabitation through joint efforts and proceeds from agriculture; therefore, division must reflect each party's contribution as per section 114(2) of the Law of Marriage Act. The trial court's division was proper and should be restored.
Source excerpt
The High Court nullified a first appellate decision after finding the appellant was denied a hearing when the matter was dealt with on a mention date.
Explore more
