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 partly allowed a matrimonial appeal, mostly upholding custody and maintenance while varying child maintenance and adjusting property division.
There was no valid marriage or unrebutted presumption of marriage between the parties; however, since they cohabited for over two years and acquired property together, section 160(2) of the Law of Marriage Act applies, allowing division of property based on contributions. The applicant is entitled to 20% of the property at Kishiri due to non-monetary contributions, while the respondent receives 80% due to her financial input.
Source excerpt
The existence of prescribed Form No. 3 in the Trial Court’s case file, filled and stamped by the ward tribunal acting as a reconciliation board, confirms compliance with the mandatory referral requirement. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit as the procedural requirement was satisfied.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding the appellant failed to prove the disputed house belonged to the deceased’s estate and found no extraneous matters.
The High Court held that the relationship was a presumption of marriage, so divorce could not be granted, but it upheld the award for land improvement and child maintenance.
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 District Land and Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the dispute as the parties' relationship and property dispute fell within the purview of matrimonial law, requiring assessment by a matrimonial court under the Law of Marriage Act.
Source excerpt
The appeal lacks merit as the marriage was valid under customary law, documentary evidence was properly admitted in accordance with primary court procedures, the difference in names in the conciliation certificate was not disputed by appellant and did not affect substantive justice, and the first appellate court properly re-evaluated the evidence regarding division of matrimonial properties.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upholding findings that the respondents were co-owners of the plot and that the appellant’s purchase lacked the co-owner’s consent.
The land appeal was time-barred as it was filed eighty days after the impugned decision, exceeding the statutory forty-five day limit, with no evidence of excusable delay or request for judgment copies. The matrimonial appeal succeeded because the lower courts failed to determine the existence or rebuttal of presumption of marriage before dividing property, rendering their proceedings and orders improper.
Source excerpt
Explore more
