1. Kauli za kimabavu za viongozi wa juu serikalini si suluhisho la migomo/kero/matatizo ya wananchi. Kinachohitajika ni serikali kujisahihisha na kuanza kuwajibika.
2. Serikali inawajibika tu inaposhinikizwa. Bila hivyo imelala usingizi wa pono.
3. Watanzania wameanza kuamka (kuwa na uti wa mgongo) kudai haki zao za kikatiba na hawataki kunyanyaswa.
4. Umoja ni nguvu.
5. Viongozi wa serikali na Watanzania wote kwa ujumla tujifunze kuchukua hatua mapema na siyo kusubiri tatizo liwe kubwa kuzidi uwezo wetu.
- Kisheria migomo Tanzania inaongozwa na sheria, yaliyojiri ilikuwa ni madaktari kutoonekana kazini kinyume na mikataba yao ya ajira. Doa hili linaweza kuwakosesha kazi nje ya Tanzania. Sisi watanzania ni wepesi kusahau utawala wa sheria.
- Kiapo cha madaktari- Hippocratic Oath- hakina maana kwa madaktari wa Tanzania.
- Taratibu za dharura zinatakiwa kama tahadhari ya usalama wa nchi yetu. Jeshi la Wananchi, Polisi, Magereza na Taasisi zote za kiusalama ziwe na jeshi la akiba la madaktari na mabingwa. Jeshi la akiba liwe linafanya kazi katika hospitali zetu ili ziweze kutumia vifaa vyote vya kisasa. Jeshi la Akiba kwa usalama wan chi sio tu kutegemea askari wa vita. Madaktari wameonyesha kuwa wanaweza kuhatarisha usalama wa nchi yetu kwa kugoma.
- Taasisi za harakati za haki za binadamu na magazeti yetu yote yamesahau kuwa pamoja na stahili za madaktari, nchi yetu inaongozwa na sheria na utaratibu. Wamesahau kuwa UTAWALA WA SHERIA NI SEHEMU YA HAKI ZA BINADAMU.
- Madaktari bingwa kuongozwa na interns badala ya wao kuwaongoza interns. Je hospitali zetu zinategemea interns tu?
- Ukimya wa Medical Council, kwa nini Medical Council ilishindwa kuona matatatizo ya madaktari mapema na kujadiliana na Serikali mapema?
- Kutokuwepo kwa Msimamo Rasmi wa TUCTA, RAAWU.
On 20[SUP]th[/SUP] July 2011, one Wastara Abdallah Mrisho (the applicant herein) filed Miscellaneous Civil Application Number 113 of 2011 under section 49 (a) and (b) of the
Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap. 352 seeking the following orders:
- revoking and setting aside of the grant of letters of administration to the respondent Saidi Ally Simba;
- declaring the estate of the late Asha Sultan as belonging to Mwashamba Abdallah Salah;
- declaring that the applicant Wastara Abdallah Mrisho is the Administrator of the estate of the late Mwashamba Abdallah Salah
In the affidavit affirmed in support of his application the applicant gave the grounds forming the basis of his claim that the estate of the late Asha Sultan in fact belongs to Mwashamba Abdallah Salah and he (the applicant) should be declared the administrator of that estate. According to the applicant, he is the son of the late Mwashamba Abdallah Salah who died on 25[SUP]th[/SUP] November 2008. The family gathering which included the respondent, met following the death of his mother, recommended him to apply for letters of administration of his late mother. On 6[SUP]th[/SUP] February 2009 the Primary Court of Ukonga appointed him to be an administrator of the estate of Mwashamba Abdallah Salah. The applicant is surprised that despite the respondent knowing that the applicant is already administering the estate of Mwashamba Abdallah Salah he also filed Probate Administration Cause Number 81 of 2010 and included a house at Pugu Kichangani which belonged to the estate of Mwashamba Abdallah Salah. The applicant affirmed further that the late Asha Sultan left nothing and was taken care of by her daughter Mwashamba Abdallah Salah. Since the estate of Asha Sultan had nothing, it was wrong for the respondent to include the house at Kichangani in the estate administered by the respondent.
mm
In her responding submissions filed on her behalf by Women's Legal Aid Centre, respondent supported the conclusion reached by the trial magistrate that the marriage between the appellant and respondent had irreparably broken down. Respondent cited the two marriage reconciliation boards the couple had to go through before she filed for divorce in the district court.
With regard to the house, it was submitted for the respondent that it is a matrimonial house they acquired jointly and should be divided equally.
In her submissions respondent supported the decision of the trial court to grant custody of their first born child to her aunt. Respondent submitted further that trial court's decision on custody of their first-born child was based on welfare of the child because it is the respondent and the child's aunt who have been taking care of the children since 2007.
It was submitted that it is now the time for the appellant to share in the maintenance by paying the TZS 50,000/= per month as ordered by the trial court in terms of section 129 (1) of the Law of Marriage Act.
+++
I have given considerable weight to the submissions advanced by the opposing sides. In my re-evaluation of evidence my decision shall consider breakup of marriage, division of matrimonial assets, the custody of the two children of the marriage and maintenance orders issued by the trial court.
+++
My re-evaluation of evidence leaves me in no doubt that the learned trial magistrate reached a correct conclusion that the marriage between the appellant and respondent had irretrievably broken down.
+++
The power of courts in Tanzania to divide matrimonial assets when a marriage irretrievably breaks down is set out under section 114-(1) of the
Law of Marriage Act, 1971. This provision states:
114. (1) The court shall have power, when granting or subsequent to the grant of a decree of separation or divorce, to order the division between the parties of any assets acquired by them during the marriage by their joint efforts or to order the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of sale.
My reading of this provision of the
Law of Marriage Act underscores the need of the trial court to first identify assets that was acquired by divorcing or separating couples by their joint efforts during the subsistence of their marriage. After identifying the assets, the trial court is required to order division between the parties. I will ask myself whether the learned trial magistrate took the first important step before division of assets by identifying jointly acquired matrimonial assets for purposes of division.
++++
methodology the trial magistrate had used to divide the listed matrimonial assets
+++
Having found that the assets which listed in paragraph 5 of the Petition for Divorce were jointly acquired by the appellant and respondent, the trial magistrate needed the guidance of subsection (2) of section 114 of the
Law of Marriage Act, 1971 on the modality of division of the listed assets:
(2) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (1), the court shall have regard–
(a) to the customs of the community to which the parties belong;
(b) to the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards the acquiring of the assets;
(c) to any debts owing by either party which were contracted for their joint benefit; and
(d) to the needs of the infant children, if any, of the marriage,
and subject to those considerations, shall incline towards equality of division.
+++
Welfare of the child:
… opinion properly guided by the provisions of section 125 of the
Law of Marriage Act, 1971 on the paramount importance of the welfare of the children when determining their custody.
+++
+++
Phrases:
- Married for 11 years, he accuses wife, Judy, of throwing him out of their matrimonial home after she started dating someone else.
- Kibet says it all began as a row over the remittance of money to his family back home, which his wife was opposed to.
- She accused him of being more supportive of his family back home than his wife and their two children, an accusation which Kibet denies.
- Judy then filed for divorce in April last year, claiming that she could not continue living in an "abusive marriage." Kibet denied the abuse accusation and maintained that at no time had he assaulted her and that the incident in question was a case of self-defence.
- That was not all: His wife was also awarded their matrimonial home.
- Kenyan families that immigrate to the United States are usually quickly confronted with the task of reconciling their Kenyan traditions and the US culture.
- Kenyan women quickly discover that the US takes violation of women's rights very seriously, a situation that they quickly embrace. The woman also realises that she has an upper hand in matters involving custody of children after divorce, and rarely is a child taken away from its mother.
In his reply to the petition for divorce at the district court, appellant denied that he and respondent had jointly acquired matrimonial assets which the respondent had itemised in her petition. Appellant also denied that his marriage to the respondent had irretrievably broken down and he asked the trial court to order his wife back to her matrimonial home.
++
This appeal was heard by way of written submissions. Appellant submitted that misunderstandings between himself and respondent were minor and there was no evidence before the trial court to support the conclusion that their marriage had failed.
Turning on the order of the trial court directing equal division of the house, appellant submitted that he alone had built the only house subject of the order of equal division. Appellant further submitted since that both himself and respondent are unemployed, the sale of the house to realize equal division thereof will deny their children a house to live in.
Appellant would like this court to overturn the decision to award custody of one of the child to her aunt.
On monthly remittances, appellant submitted that he is unemployed with poor educational background. His work as a casual labour is not sufficient to maintain himself and remit the monthly allowances.
Appellant's written submissions on the grounds of appeal were filed on 19[SUP]th[/SUP] May 2011 while respondent's submissions were filed on his behalf by F. A. M. Mgare on 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] June 2011. The exchange of written submissions ended on 22[SUP]nd[/SUP] June 2011 when appellant presented her rejoinder submissions.
++
1. Kisheria migomo Tanzania inaongozwa na sheria, yaliyojiri ilikuwa ni madaktari kutoonekana kazini kinyume na mikataba yao ya ajira. Doa hili linaweza kuwakosesha kazi nje ya Tanzania. Sisi watanzania ni wepesi kusahau utawala wa sheria. 2. Kiapo cha madaktari- Hippocratic Oath- hakina maana kwa madaktari wa Tanzania. 3. Taratibu za dharura zinatakiwa kama tahadhari ya usalama wa nchi yetu. Jeshi la Wananchi, Polisi, Magereza na Taasisi zote za kiusalama ziwe na jeshi la akiba la madaktari na mabingwa. Jeshi la akiba liwe linafanya kazi katika hospitali zetu ili ziweze kutumia vifaa vyote vya kisasa. Jeshi la Akiba kwa usalama wan chi sio tu kutegemea askari wa vita. Madaktari wameonyesha kuwa wanaweza kuhatarisha usalama wa nchi yetu kwa kugoma. 4. Taasisi za harakati za haki za binadamu na magazeti yetu yote yamesahau kuwa pamoja na stahili za madaktari, nchi yetu inaongozwa na sheria na utaratibu. Wamesahau kuwa UTAWALA WA SHERIA NI SEHEMU YA HAKI ZA BINADAMU. 5. Madaktari bingwa kuongozwa na interns badala ya wao kuwaongoza interns. Je hospitali zetu zinategemea interns tu? 6. Ukimya wa Medical Council, kwa nini Medical Council ilishindwa kuona matatatizo ya madaktari mapema na kujadiliana na Serikali mapema? 7. Kutokuwepo kwa Msimamo Rasmi wa TUCTA, RAAWU. On 20[SUP]th[/SUP] July 2011, one Wastara Abdallah Mrisho (the applicant herein) filed Miscellaneous Civil Application Number 113 of 2011 under section 49 (a) and (b) of the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap. 352 seeking the following orders: 1. revoking and setting aside of the grant of letters of administration to the respondent Saidi Ally Simba; 2. declaring the estate of the late Asha Sultan as belonging to Mwashamba Abdallah Salah; 3. declaring that the applicant Wastara Abdallah Mrisho is the Administrator of the estate of the late Mwashamba Abdallah Salah In the affidavit affirmed in support of his application the applicant gave the grounds forming the basis of his claim that the estate of the late Asha Sultan in fact belongs to Mwashamba Abdallah Salah and he (the applicant) should be declared the administrator of that estate. According to the applicant, he is the son of the late Mwashamba Abdallah Salah who died on 25[SUP]th[/SUP] November 2008. The family gathering which included the respondent, met following the death of his mother, recommended him to apply for letters of administration of his late mother. On 6[SUP]th[/SUP] February 2009 the Primary Court of Ukonga appointed him to be an administrator of the estate of Mwashamba Abdallah Salah. The applicant is surprised that despite the respondent knowing that the applicant is already administering the estate of Mwashamba Abdallah Salah he also filed Probate Administration Cause Number 81 of 2010 and included a house at Pugu Kichangani which belonged to the estate of Mwashamba Abdallah Salah. The applicant affirmed further that the late Asha Sultan left nothing and was taken care of by her daughter Mwashamba Abdallah Salah. Since the estate of Asha Sultan had nothing, it was wrong for the respondent to include the house at Kichangani in the estate administered by the respondent. mm In her responding submissions filed on her behalf by Women's Legal Aid Centre, respondent supported the conclusion reached by the trial magistrate that the marriage between the appellant and respondent had irreparably broken down. Respondent cited the two marriage reconciliation boards the couple had to go through before she filed for divorce in the district court. With regard to the house, it was submitted for the respondent that it is a matrimonial house they acquired jointly and should be divided equally. In her submissions respondent supported the decision of the trial court to grant custody of their first born child to her aunt. Respondent submitted further that trial court's decision on custody of their first-born child was based on welfare of the child because it is the respondent and the child's aunt who have been taking care of the children since 2007. It was submitted that it is now the time for the appellant to share in the maintenance by paying the TZS 50,000/= per month as ordered by the trial court in terms of section 129 (1) of the Law of Marriage Act. +++ I have given considerable weight to the submissions advanced by the opposing sides. In my re-evaluation of evidence my decision shall consider breakup of marriage, division of matrimonial assets, the custody of the two children of the marriage and maintenance orders issued by the trial court. +++ My re-evaluation of evidence leaves me in no doubt that the learned trial magistrate reached a correct conclusion that the marriage between the appellant and respondent had irretrievably broken down. +++ The power of courts in Tanzania to divide matrimonial assets when a marriage irretrievably breaks down is set out under section 114-(1) of the Law of Marriage Act, 1971. This provision states: 114. (1) The court shall have power, when granting or subsequent to the grant of a decree of separation or divorce, to order the division between the parties of any assets acquired by them during the marriage by their joint efforts or to order the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of sale. My reading of this provision of the Law of Marriage Act underscores the need of the trial court to first identify assets that was acquired by divorcing or separating couples by their joint efforts during the subsistence of their marriage. After identifying the assets, the trial court is required to order division between the parties. I will ask myself whether the learned trial magistrate took the first important step before division of assets by identifying jointly acquired matrimonial assets for purposes of division. ++++ methodology the trial magistrate had used to divide the listed matrimonial assets +++ Having found that the assets which listed in paragraph 5 of the Petition for Divorce were jointly acquired by the appellant and respondent, the trial magistrate needed the guidance of subsection (2) of section 114 of the Law of Marriage Act, 1971 on the modality of division of the listed assets: (2) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (1), the court shall have regard– (a) to the customs of the community to which the parties belong; (b) to the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards the acquiring of the assets; (c) to any debts owing by either party which were contracted for their joint benefit; and (d) to the needs of the infant children, if any, of the marriage, and subject to those considerations, shall incline towards equality of division. +++ Welfare of the child: … opinion properly guided by the provisions of section 125 of the Law of Marriage Act, 1971 on the paramount importance of the welfare of the children when determining their custody. +++ +++ Phrases: · Married for 11 years, he accuses wife, Judy, of throwing him out of their matrimonial home after she started dating someone else. · Kibet says it all began as a row over the remittance of money to his family back home, which his wife was opposed to. · She accused him of being more supportive of his family back home than his wife and their two children, an accusation which Kibet denies. · Judy then filed for divorce in April last year, claiming that she could not continue living in an "abusive marriage." Kibet denied the abuse accusation and maintained that at no time had he assaulted her and that the incident in question was a case of self-defence. · That was not all: His wife was also awarded their matrimonial home. · Kenyan families that immigrate to the United States are usually quickly confronted with the task of reconciling their Kenyan traditions and the US culture. · Kenyan women quickly discover that the US takes violation of women's rights very seriously, a situation that they quickly embrace. The woman also realises that she has an upper hand in matters involving custody of children after divorce, and rarely is a child taken away from its mother. In his reply to the petition for divorce at the district court, appellant denied that he and respondent had jointly acquired matrimonial assets which the respondent had itemised in her petition. Appellant also denied that his marriage to the respondent had irretrievably broken down and he asked the trial court to order his wife back to her matrimonial home. ++ This appeal was heard by way of written submissions. Appellant submitted that misunderstandings between himself and respondent were minor and there was no evidence before the trial court to support the conclusion that their marriage had failed. Turning on the order of the trial court directing equal division of the house, appellant submitted that he alone had built the only house subject of the order of equal division. Appellant further submitted since that both himself and respondent are unemployed, the sale of the house to realize equal division thereof will deny their children a house to live in. Appellant would like this court to overturn the decision to award custody of one of the child to her aunt. On monthly remittances, appellant submitted that he is unemployed with poor educational background. His work as a casual labour is not sufficient to maintain himself and remit the monthly allowances. Appellant's written submissions on the grounds of appeal were filed on 19[SUP]th[/SUP] May 2011 while respondent's submissions were filed on his behalf by F. A. M. Mgare on 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] June 2011. The exchange of written submissions ended on 22[SUP]nd[/SUP] June 2011 when appellant presented her rejoinder submissions. ++
