Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Uchambuzi wa kesi ya kubambikiziwa Dk. Slaa huu hapa (Kiingereza)

Discussion in 'Uchaguzi Tanzania' started by Rutashubanyuma, Sep 25, 2010.

  1. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    Sep 25, 2010
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 60,536
    Likes Received: 356
    Trophy Points: 180

    (By Rutashubanyuma Nestory a public policy analyst based in Arusha)

    When a global celebrity Tiger Woods expressed remorse in a telecast following salacious revelations involving his sexual escapades, his wife rushed to a court seeking marriage dissolution.

    Of noteworthy, Tiger Woods' wife did not raise remote claims of general and special damages despite her husband's overt admissions of colossal infidelity simply because marital hazards whether real or imaginary are not covered in a marriage contract for atonement.

    In other semantics, vows of fidelity are taken in full understanding that humans are not angels: Humans were born to error. Ask Adam and Eve. Even in certain legal relationships such as employment where pecuniary redress glues parties together remote damage claims arising from traumatic distress, psychological torture or malicious humiliation following a wrongful termination of the contract are not sustainable.

    In marriage, parties are bound together by the contentment of consensual bliss and money compensation is never the motivation. At utmost, a disenchanted spouse in a marriage can opt out and the justly compensation can be a bride price if it was paid.

    Similarly, one can not go to courts importuning them to foist a spouse to cohabit with him because the terms of marriage are based on contractual willingness but not compulsion. If a jilted husband goes to court because a wife is proven an adulterer the courts' legal ambits are limited to declaration that marriage stands annulled and where there are family properties and children the courts will apportion them according to one's personal contribution with nonages' interests being paramount.

    A jilted cannot succeed to ask the courts to award him colossal damages once his wife has been nabbed an adulterer because such extortionate claims were not known to parties before they entered into such marriage contract.

    In fact the jilted will be taking the jilter by surprise once those court papers have been filed and served to the latter. Any claim not expressly mentioned in a contract is defined as a remote one because parties were unaware of it during the conception of their agreement. Hence, a defendant can easily ask the courts to dismiss with costs remote claims for being frivolous and vexatious.

    There are umpteenth reasons why the courts lack the jurisdiction to entertain remote claims from a broken marriage.

    One of the reasons is spousal conflict verges on perceptions of behaviour. When litigants translate those perceptions into words to sway the courts the impression and effect of "hearsay" is available. The reason is different behaviour leads to a variety of interpretations based upon our own state of self-esteem.

    A low self-esteemed person will project negativity when faced with similar comport of which a high self-esteemed person will just disregard it. The dilemma to courts is where there is fairness of awarding someone for nursing a figment of their bruised egos implicitly snubbed in a marriage contract? In such circumstances the courts have no mechanisms that can independently verify perceptions of the truth and tend to overlook them altogether.

    Grievous bodily harm inflicted upon a spouse and proven by an authorized medical practitioner may be treated differently because penal code is at stake but invisible wounds can not.

    Another consideration is based upon commonsense and logic. If a marriage involved bride price why the compensation should exceed it knowing the spouses had both benefited from the marriage or otherwise they would have dissolved it beforehand. A comic circus of lunging first to a courtroom may attract canard but reminds of legal levity.

    Being first to file a lawsuit does not in anyway imply that you are a casualty but at best it portends you have the reasons to dissolve the marriage and the means to do it but nothing else.

    Generally, the courts will assume it takes "two to tangle" notwithstanding who was the first past the courtroom lectern. Courts disdain being abused to reward gold diggers who may parlay them as venues for quick get rich schemes. Also, courts sneer being exploited as catalyst to break homes for personal financial gains.

    Amicable divorce is the best legal recourse for a broken home.