Godwishes Gibson Minja vs Neema Jumanne Kiroga (Civil Appeal No. 408 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 457 (29 April 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: NDIKA. J.A.. MURUKE. J.A.. And MGEYEKWA. J.A.l CIVIL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2024 GODWISHES GIBSON MINJA.......................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS NEEMA JUMANNE KIROGA .......................................................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania, Temeke High Court Sub-registry at Temeke) (Mnvukwa, J.l dated the 3r d day of April 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2023 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 Jd & 29hApril, 2026 NDIKA. J.A.: Godwishes Gibson Minja and Neema Jumanne Kiroga, the appellant and respondent respectively, entered into a Christian marriage on 19th August 2006, which was later graced with three children. Subsequent to the deterioration of ties, the respondent vacated the matrimonial residence in 2014 and resided at a relative's home for more than six years. The District Court of Kinondoni initially dismissed the appellant's divorce petition. However, the High Court of Tanzania, Temeke High Court Sub- Registry, determined on the appellant's first appeal that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the respondent's desertion of the appellant for over three years, as stipulated in section 107(2)(f) of the Law of Marriage Act, Cap. 29 R.E. 2023 ("the LMA"). Consequently, the i High Court annulled the marriage and issued specific directives regarding the partition of matrimonial assets. Nevertheless, it refrained from issuing any order regarding the custody and maintenance of the children due to a lack of evidentiary support in the record for its decision. In summary, concerning the distribution of matrimonial property, the High Court determined that certain landed properties and household items were jointly acquired by the parties. It dismissed the respondent's assertion of personally purchasing a parcel of land in Muheza, Kibaha, Coast Region for TZS. 2,000,000.00, but determined that the said property was a joint spousal asset, with the respondent contributing through domestic services as a homemaker to its acquisition. The court ultimately allocated the landed property in a 50:50 ratio, assigning the appellant two plots (Plot Nos. 8 and 9, Block D under Certificates of Title Nos. 179612 and 177724) and the respondent two plots (Plot Nos. 5 and 6, Block D under Certificates of Title Nos. 178358 and 177661). Plot No. 7 Block D, held under Certificate of Title No. 178636, was designated for joint ownership by the parties. In addition to each party receiving one car, the respondent was assigned household items. The appellant remains disappointed with the case's conclusion. He initially filed two grounds of appeal challenging the partition of the matrimonial assets and the court's refusal to adjudicate custody and maintenance of the children. During the appeal hearing, Mr. Michael John 2 Nyambo, learned counsel for the appellant, abandoned the custody and maintenance grievance but pursued the appeal based on the claim reformulated for clarity as follows: "That the High Court erred in law by mandating the distribution o f matrimonial property without due regard that it does not belong to the respondent and that she made no contribution to its acquisition". Mr. Nyambo's principal argument was that the distribution ratio failed to account for the fact that all the five plots of land in issue were registered in the appellant's name, and therefore pursuant to section 60 (a) of the LMA, they should have been inferred and regarded as the appellant's. He criticised the High Court for neglecting to acknowledge that the respondent did not demonstrate that she obtained or contributed to the acquisition of the property. The respondent, appearing as a self-represented litigant, simply implored the Court to affirm the High Court's allocation of the assets. The division of matrimonial assets is governed by section 114 of the LMA stipulating as follows: "114.-(1) The court shall have power, when granting or subsequent to the grant a decree o f separation or divorce, to order the division between the parties o fany assets acquired assets 3 by them during the marriage by theirjoint efforts or order the sale o f any asset and the division between the parties o f the proceeds o f sale. (2) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (1), the court shall have regard to - (a) the customs o f the community to which the parties belong; (b) the extent o f the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards the acquiring o f the assets; (c) any debts owing by either party which were contracted for theirjoint benefit; and (d) the needs o f the children, if any, o f the marriage, and subject to those considerations, shall incline towards equality o f division. (3) For the purposes o f this section, references to assets acquired during the marriage include assets owned before the marriage by one party which have been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by theirjoint efforts". In the division of matrimonial assets, the court is mandated by section 114 (2) to evaluate, among other factors, the customs of the community to which the parties belong, the monetary contributions, property, or labour each party has made towards the acquisition of the 4 assets, as well as the needs of the children of the marriage. In every case, the court must favour equitable distribution. It is undisputed that all five plots of land are registered in the appellant's name; however, evidence indicates that they were acquired collectively during the marriage and were intended for development and use for the benefit of both parties and their children. In our view, the High Court correctly classified them as matrimonial or spousal assets subject to division between the parties - see: Bi Hawa Mohamed v. Ally Sefu [1983] T.L.R. 32; Gabriel Nimrod Kurwijila v. Theresia Hassan Malongo [2020] TZCA 31; Marcel Kichumisa v. Mery Venant Kabirigi [2023] TZCA 218; Amri Yahaya Mfikilwa v. Fatuma Mohamed Nampembe [2025] TZCA 279; and David Robert Makange v. Linda David Robert Makange [2025] TZCA 856 defining "matrimonial assets" as assets acquired by one or other or both of the parties, with the intention that there should be continuing provision for them and their children during their joint lives, and used for the benefit of the family as a whole. We recall that Mr. Nyambo advocated for the five plots of land to be regarded as the appellant's property under section 60 (a) of the LMA due to their registration in his name. This claim is inconsistent with the evidence. The appellant, albeit the registered owner, asserted during the 5 trial that the disputed land constituted family property and concurred with his estranged wife being allocated one plot as her share. We indicated previously that the High Court rejected the respondent's assertion that she personally acquired the parcel of land from which the five plots were derived. In addition to failing to provide any documentary or other evidence to substantiate her allegation, she presented no proof indicating that she contributed personally, either financially or otherwise, to the development of the plots. The court eventually recognised her contribution through the domestic services she rendered and the support she provided as a salaried employee for the family's wellbeing. On the other hand, the court was impressed by the appellant's evidence that he personally acquired the landed property and had the plots of land curved from it registered in his name. On this evidence, the court determined that the parties were entitled to an equitable split of the landed property. To be sure, the court denied the appellant's request for the allocation of one plot to each party and each child, on the reason that marital property is only divisible exclusively between spouses. We have considered the evidence that the appellant personally obtained the landed property. He has maintained it since that time and during the period of the respondent's abandonment of their residence. In contrast, the respondent's contribution to the property was through the 6 domestic services she provided for the family's welfare until 2014 when she left the residence. We contend that the High Court's allocation of the property in a 50:50 ratio was unjust, as we assert that the respondent's contribution was minimal. We believe it would serve the interests of justice for the respondent to be allocated one plot while the appellant retains the remainder. Consequently, we vary the High Court's distribution, assigning the respondent Plot No. 5 Block D, under Certificate of Title No. 178358, while the appellant retains Plots Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9. In the upshot, we find merit in the appeal, which we allow to the extent stated above. Each party shall bear its own costs. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 28th day of April 2026. G. A. M. NDIKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Z. G. MURUKE JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. Z. MGEYEKWA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered this 29th day of April, 2026 in the presence of the appellant and respondent both appeared in person-unrepresented and Mr. Ladislaus Msuba, Court clerk is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. J. E. FOVO DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 7