Misukwa Kulwa vs Luhende Shimba (PC Civil Matr. Appeal No. 1 of 1996) [1999] TZHC 484 (28 May 1999)

~ feF ,#Y ~ ,,,rrY' _ ,)f ,1,,,vv-.,-,,•rz __ --0- MOSHI, J. rN THE HIGH COURr OFT AT MBEYA.. '. (PC)_ {;!VIL MATR. APPEAL NO. ~ .OF "1996 _,,. (Frpm, the .·· .. Churiya at decisi?n: of "t)le· D'istric:t t'.&urt of uny .. I}.·.· yt1;i-:Appeal No .17'·sJ't · t995 : . .. . . ·~~.; . . .. . . MISUKWA KULWA •.•,• -•·.•.··e:o, •.• •·••.o APPELLANT · VERSUS LUHENDE SHIMBA ••••••••••• • • • ::·RESPONDENT

· JUDGMENT. The.-,partie~· were' husband and wife. -Th~ appellant petitioned for :··. divorce bfor ,.th~ prim~· cuft of Mwambani •.. The petition succeeded and their marriage ~~, dsol ved. ' .The primary court made orders for return of . r. _·[·. _.:: ·.:•,. do.lry, custody of the child ... oi'\he m;;riage, and divion of some property. 1e orders aggrieved the respondent who, in " ' . consequence, preferred an appeal"to the district court of Chunya. The district·· urt 'varia':·th- orders· for custody and re.turn of dowry,. •• 1 ••• and set as-itle' the ordi- ·f---divfa.:i:&rt: :of property. Thus the district court partly allowed·the appeal. The appellant, in turn, felt aggrieved, hence . .. ..' .. .l . . : ' .... . .'. · .. . . : : -:·• . . .: . ~ this appeal which was preferred and argued before me by her learned advocate, . . . Mr. Mkumbe raised an important uncontrovrted:point .of law which makes ' _;' . - . . - .. adjudication of this appeal on its merits unnecessary • . ·"'·'"' ,. . There was a fatal,.·. .. -•'-··· . irregularity wl:i'ich obtained in the matter. The matrimonial difficulty was not ·first referred to a Marriage Conciliatory Boardh°efore the, petition for (• ...... : .. ,.· • ,Wli.• • • .• . . . . ,,-...... 1 .. • divorce was filed ip court. This .. laps., of!-rtded the. pr9.:visions of Section 101 of the Law of Marriage Act 1971, herefnafter; re_ferred' to as the Act, . ·. _· .. .' : ( \ ✓} • • which read: · ·. · • <2; 11 No person shall. petition for divor'ce ·unless .. • he or she ,,.. . ,) r.. ;· ·{\ . has first referred the mcttrimonial difficulty to a Board and the Board· has certified that it has f@-ilcd 1 ¢' to recocil~ .the pa.rties 1 ?·. 011•_000•0•8 /2

,, . ' 2 . -. :/..-1::.--.:;. ·/ .·; 1 : !t:- .... ··}. : ·- -t Section 106{2) of the Act fr~~ies every petition for a decree of divorce to . ... . ,• .• . .:· :. . .. ,: .... -. \• -.·r· ,.. . ' .. r. . . be accompanie°a:.by i5iich·i: _·ceificate which must set out the findings and recommenaati~~'.--:_;-~i£;~~ {::-\erms C·e·ctio~ :1o4(5) of the Acto There '.. '. ' -~ . . . . . ~ :, ") .·. . .. ~ .. . . "'. . ,• . are six exc:I>tJ..q4f]-;th./e'q°J.:i,r-e,iii:it .. for reference· t'a a Board specified under ' . ,. . . . ,,, . ,,.. . • .. . -- •. . - . !:· Section 101 as pafa,phs (a) :to (f)o In the circumstances of this case, .•• i · .• ~ :. ,; . ·.:. .: \ ...•. •,' .. :-· __ ,. ~ . : ,. however, paragraphs (a). to (e) were inapplicable,_ and there were no extraordinary , ~ - •. .,,_ , . . . . . . . . .. .. ·"- •. - •. :-~ Jr . .: "!..' : circumstances~ "I~:e-- ai'one fo ''th~ ''sat:LsTi,£l6r{ of .th~·-.trial court, which made reference to the Board imprc!t:t_icable in terms of paragraph ( f). -.-:~·t\ -~ . ~-- . :

• . .. :-.· ..... In point of the policy of the Act, a Marriage - Concili:atory Boa,;rd. is ·aJ .. ,,·.· very impo~t;mt 1 /~t.~~~~J,9,n in, the· scheme of th"ings under thEFActo It is an -·rJ·c'-· :.··. ·- .. , impa:rtial b(?dy eJ!:pected to restore confidence in parties confronted \Vith, .. the stresses and strains of ,mrfied lifeo It is .in a position to make an object'ive ~ assessment of the circumstances followed by an attempt at mediation and reco- nciliation which are essential under the Act. This court held in o Mzee v. Fatuma ~~ (1984) TLR 112 that in the absence of a certificate from a conciliatory board, and the case not falling.under any of the exceptio1?-5 listed in section 101(a) to (f) of the Act, a petitiort,for divorce becomes premature and incompetento In the c_ircumstances obtaillg in this case, I am satisfied that the failure to refer th- ·matrimonial difficuI.ty·· to a Marriage Conciliatory Board before the petition • for divorce ·was preferred vitiated the proceedings, judgments and orders of both courts below which are, in conse~uence, hereby declared null and void • . '.!'hey are ·1uashed and set aside.- l"• .• • ,: •·:,:: ,.. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The parties are to remain legally married,, and in ).~~-..ne of them wishes to diorce the othr··-he or she . .,, ,· . ·, >' . . .--~ ..... t -" . ~ ' ·,:'t.(.;/t if :., 'I \ ~-- • .. _ c; "$. \ •. , ": . .. --- ... ,t, Y' •.. . .... ,. ,: .... AT M.BEYAo "'----------/ --- . ·- L ,, .· -,. JlillGE •. 28 May 1999. For Appellant: Absent. For Respondent: Absento