Recognition of marriages contracted outside Tanzania under Law of Marriage Act. By Johnson Yesaya

 RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGES WITH FOREIGN ELEMENTS IN TANZANIA

The Law of Marriage Act  of Tanzania recognizes marriage contracted outside Tanzania by Tanzanians or between Tanzanians and foreigners or by foreigners who used to reside in Tanzania. Section 36  of LMA recognizes all marriages contracted abroad if, (a) it was contracted in a form required or permitted by the law of the country where it was contracted; (b) each of the parties had, at the time of the marriage, capacity to marry under the law of the country of his or her domicile; and (c) both parties freely and voluntarily consented to the marriage or, where either party did not freely and voluntarily consent to the marriage, the parties have freely and voluntarily consummated the marriage; (d) where either of the parties is a citizen of the United Republic or is domiciled in Mainland Tanzania, both parties had capacity to marry according to LMA.

The recognition of these marriages empowers spouses to petition for divorce or any right through the courts of Tanzania. Section 77(1)(a),(b) and (c) of LMA allows individuals to petition the court for a declaratory decree— (a) if he or she is domiciled in  Tanzania; (b) if he or she is resident in  Tanzania; (c) where the decree sought is as to the validity of a ceremony which took place in  Tanzania and purported to be a marriage. In regarding the above provision, the laws of Tanzania welcomes foreigners to petition any right concerning their marriage if their case fall within prescription provided in the above section.

In the case of Thanda Domzalski v. Henry Michael Domzalski , the petitioner petitioned successful for separation and maintenance of their one issue. Respondent Aggrieved by the decision of Kisutu RMs hence lodged an appeal on several grounds including jurisdiction. The appellant believed that, the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter to which parties contracted their marriage abroad with a very different legal regime. The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, there was no grounds which hold water by applicant. An applicant applied for extension of time to file application to set aside order which dismissed his appeal, his application was granted on other grounds not jurisdiction.