Linguistic
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 16, 2021
- 3,671
- 8,239
Jaji Koome anasema Mwanaume anayeishi kwenye nyumba inayomilikiwa na mwanamke naye anahitajika kuthibitisha mchango wake kwenye nyumba hiyo. Kucheka tu huku ukiwa kwenye nyumba ya mwanamke ukibadilisha chaneli za runinga haiwezi kumpa haki mwanaume kumiliki sehemu ya mali ya mwanamke.
Haya Maamuzi ya Jaji Koome yamenikumbusha KESI ya Yesse Mrisho v. Sania Abdu, Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2016 (unreported)
Matter hii inaeleza kuwa ili mwanandoa apate mgawo lazima kuwe na ushahidi wa kuchangia mali zilizopatikana wakati wa ndoa.
Kama hakuna ushahidi bhasi hawezi pata chochote.
Yaaani There is no doubt that a court, when determining such contribution must also scrutinize the contribution or efforts of each party to the marriage in acquisition of matrimonial assets.
And it's clear therefore that extent of contribution by a party in a matrimonial proceeding is a question of evidence.
Once there's no evidence adduced to that effect, the appellant cannot blame the High Court Judge for not considering the same in its decision.
In my view, the issue of equality of division as envisaged under section 114 (2) of LMA cannot arise also where there is no evidence to prove extent of contribution.
Suala la usawa wa mgawanyiko kama inavyodhaniwa chini ya kifungu cha 114 (2) cha sheria ya Ndoa ya mwaka 1971 haliwezi kutokea pia ambapo hakuna ushahidi wa kuthibitisha kiwango cha mchango.
So Kwa Hyo decision ya Yesse unahitaji ushahidi kudhibitisha kuwa mwanamke alichangia mali za wanandoa.
Wanawake Wengi wamekuwa na mitazamo kadha wa kadha kuhusu hili.
Wengi wamekuwa wakisema sheria inasema watagawana 50/50 jambo ambalo si kweli.
Hii Kesi maarufu ya Bi Hawa Mohamedi vs. Ali Sefu inaeleza mwanamke ana haki ya kupata mahali walizochuma na mumewe wakati wa ndoa hata kama alikuwa mama wa nyumbani.
.
Lakini hii kesi haielezi ni kiasi gani au % ngapi ana stahili kupata.
.
Japo ni kesi nzuri kumtetea Mwanamke anayeonewa lakini bado hii haiko wazi.
.
So Kesi Hii ya Yesse Inampa Sharti Jaji au Hakimu Kwamba anaweza kuamua asilimia zozote hata 2% hivyo bado kuna mtihani.
.
I stand to be corrected Guys
Haya Maamuzi ya Jaji Koome yamenikumbusha KESI ya Yesse Mrisho v. Sania Abdu, Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2016 (unreported)
Matter hii inaeleza kuwa ili mwanandoa apate mgawo lazima kuwe na ushahidi wa kuchangia mali zilizopatikana wakati wa ndoa.
Kama hakuna ushahidi bhasi hawezi pata chochote.
Yaaani There is no doubt that a court, when determining such contribution must also scrutinize the contribution or efforts of each party to the marriage in acquisition of matrimonial assets.
And it's clear therefore that extent of contribution by a party in a matrimonial proceeding is a question of evidence.
Once there's no evidence adduced to that effect, the appellant cannot blame the High Court Judge for not considering the same in its decision.
In my view, the issue of equality of division as envisaged under section 114 (2) of LMA cannot arise also where there is no evidence to prove extent of contribution.
Suala la usawa wa mgawanyiko kama inavyodhaniwa chini ya kifungu cha 114 (2) cha sheria ya Ndoa ya mwaka 1971 haliwezi kutokea pia ambapo hakuna ushahidi wa kuthibitisha kiwango cha mchango.
So Kwa Hyo decision ya Yesse unahitaji ushahidi kudhibitisha kuwa mwanamke alichangia mali za wanandoa.
Wanawake Wengi wamekuwa na mitazamo kadha wa kadha kuhusu hili.
Wengi wamekuwa wakisema sheria inasema watagawana 50/50 jambo ambalo si kweli.
Hii Kesi maarufu ya Bi Hawa Mohamedi vs. Ali Sefu inaeleza mwanamke ana haki ya kupata mahali walizochuma na mumewe wakati wa ndoa hata kama alikuwa mama wa nyumbani.
.
Lakini hii kesi haielezi ni kiasi gani au % ngapi ana stahili kupata.
.
Japo ni kesi nzuri kumtetea Mwanamke anayeonewa lakini bado hii haiko wazi.
.
So Kesi Hii ya Yesse Inampa Sharti Jaji au Hakimu Kwamba anaweza kuamua asilimia zozote hata 2% hivyo bado kuna mtihani.
.
I stand to be corrected Guys
