Second matrimonial appeal on division of property. The High Court reversed the husband’s 30% share in one house, but left the rest of the lower courts’ orders intact.
The High Court held that failure to tender a Marriage Conciliation Board certificate in a divorce matter rendered the trial a nullity and quashed the lower courts' proceedings.
The respondent contributed TZS 50,000 to the purchase of the matrimonial house during marriage, satisfying the requirements of section 114 of the Law of Marriage Act for division of matrimonial property. The trial court's award of 35% to the respondent was based on evidence and proper legal principles. The appellant's arguments regarding asset acquisition before marriage, sentimental value, and valuation were either unsupported by evidence or legally irrelevant. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
The District Court erred in law and fact by ignoring the amended petition of appeal, as the original petition ceased to exist upon amendment. The proceedings and judgment of the District Court are a nullity and must be set aside. The matter is remitted for proper hearing based on a valid amended petition of appeal.
The court found that the evidence presented did not conclusively establish cruelty or adultery to the satisfaction required for a decree of divorce; family quarrels and hearsay testimony were insufficient to prove irreparable breakdown of marriage.
The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to determine the name issue as it was a factual matter not raised at trial; the marriage had irreparably broken down for multiple reasons beyond cruelty; and the division of matrimonial property at 60% to the appellant and 40% to the respondent was justified based on both direct and indirect contributions during the marriage.
Second appeal in a matrimonial dispute. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the lower courts distributed property without sufficient proof of the assets or each party’s contribution.
Failure to produce a certificate from the Marriage Conciliation Board as required by section 101 of the Law of Marriage Act renders the petition incompetent and ousts the court’s jurisdiction; thus, the proceedings and judgments of the trial and first appellate courts are nullities.
The High Court partly allowed a matrimonial appeal, mostly upholding custody and maintenance while varying child maintenance and adjusting property division.
On second appeal, the High Court upheld divorce and division of property, finding the dispute had been referred to the Marriage Conciliation Board and the land was matrimonial property.