RUHINDA JUDGMENT
The High Court allowed CRDB Bank’s appeal, finding the first respondent was not proved to live in the mortgaged house and the bank was not negligent.
- Matrimonial home
- Spousal consent
- Mortgage
- Collateral
- Negligence
- Matrimonial-home
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
The High Court allowed CRDB Bank’s appeal, finding the first respondent was not proved to live in the mortgaged house and the bank was not negligent.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal over the legality of a mortgage, holding that the tribunal did not decide matrimonial status and that the appellant proved no marriage.
The house attached, sold, and subject to eviction was occupied by the judgment debtor, his wife, and children, making it non-attachable under Tanzanian law; all execution processes regarding the house were illegal.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the house was a matrimonial home and that the bank needed spousal consent for the later overdraft facility.
The High Court upheld the trial court’s division of matrimonial property, finding the Kondoa house was acquired before marriage and no basis to disturb the distribution.
Eviction of the appellant from the matrimonial home by the legal representative of the deceased wife is unlawful under section 59(3) of the Law of Marriage Act; the appellant's right to remain in the matrimonial home arises from the subsisting marriage and cannot be overridden by the estate representative.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the mortgaged properties were matrimonial homes requiring her consent, and dismissed the suit with costs.
The mortgage of the matrimonial home and properties was invalid due to lack of spousal consent, and the DLHT was correct in refusing to admit the spousal consent document as secondary evidence since no proper foundation was laid. The law places the burden on the lender to ensure spousal consent is obtained, and the first respondent's interest in the properties is protected by statute regardless of caveat registration.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an execution objection as premature because the property had not yet been actually attached.
The High Court upheld a maintenance order but refused revision on residence in the matrimonial home, holding that landlord-tenant matters lay outside the trial court’s jurisdiction.
Explore more