TRA accompanied by Police

I am a law-abiding citizen residing in Dar es Salaam. Recently, a customs officer from the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) conducted a routine inspection in one of the municipalities in our region. The officer noticed a vehicle that appeared to have been smuggled into the country without paying the necessary duties. The officer attempted to stop the vehicle and question the driver. However, the driver became aggressive and started accusing the officer of being an abductor. This situation escalated, and a crowd gathered, believing the officer was unlawfully detaining the driver. The TRA officer, who was not accompanied by the police, called for backup, but before the police arrived, the crowd attacked the officer, causing injuries. Who was wrong, the TRA officer or the crowd? Please guide me.
AL, Dar es Salaam 

Collaboration between TRA officers and the police is important to prevent such incidents and ensure they can perform their duties safely and effectively. However, TRA officers may lawfully perform their duties without being accompanied by the police. In cases concerning customs, section 5 of the Customs (Management and Tariff) Act, Cap. 403 [R.E 2019] provides that customs officers have the power to patrol, inspect, and seize property suspected to be contraband, similar to police officers. They do not require police authorisation to carry out these duties.

Similarly, under section 7 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004, officers administering the provisions of the Act have all the powers, rights, privileges, and protection of police officers of the Partner State in which such officers perform their duties. Lastly, according to section 94 of the Tax Administration Act Cap. 438 [R.E 2019], a tax officer is authorised to search, seize, or arrest a person, similar to a police officer, where there is a breach of tax law. Suppose what you said is true in this scenario, then the customs officer acted within his legal rights to inspect the vehicle. The attack on the officer was, therefore, unlawful. A lawyer can guide you further.

Three suitors, one husband

I remember reading a play titled Three Suitors, One Husband in school. The play was about three men wanting to marry a girl called Juliette. Two of these men had already paid dowry to Juliette’s family, and the third one, whom Juliette loved and wanted to marry, had nothing. I want to understand the legal perspective of the issues in the play. First, is taking dowry from different men for the same woman allowed by law? What are the remedies for the two men who paid the dowry and Juliette refused them? Can a woman choose whom she wants to marry? Please guide me.
RG, Mtwara

This is an interesting question which also reminded us of our school days! It is interesting to put a legal spin to this. First and foremost, the Law of Marriage Act, [Cap. 29 R.E 2019] (LMA) governs all matters related to marriage in Tanzania. On the first question, the LMA has no specific restriction on taking dowry from different individuals since dowry is not a requirement of the LMA but customs. Section 41 of the LMA provides that a marriage which in all other respects complies with the express requirements of this Act shall be valid for all purposes, notwithstanding any non-compliance with any custom relating to dowry or the giving or exchanging of gifts before or after marriage.

Nonetheless, section 71 of the LMA provides that a suit may be brought for the return of any gift made in contemplation of a marriage which has not been contracted, where the Court is satisfied that it was made with the intention on the part of the giver that it should be conditional on the marriage being contracted, but not otherwise. Dowry may be recovered through this route since the LMA defines it as any payment of stock, goods, money or other property made or promised in consideration of an intended marriage. Finally, women are free to choose whom they marry since, according to section 9(1) of the LMA, marriage is a voluntary union of a man and a woman, intended to last for their joint lives. A lawyer can guide you further.

Effect of suicide on life insurance

I recently got a life insurance policy, and it mentions something about it being void if I die by my own act or face capital punishment within a specific period. However, the policy remains valid after the said period even if such events occur. What does this mean? Could you help clarify this?
PS, Dodoma

The said clause is a reflection of section 111 of the Insurance Act, 2009 (as amended), which essentially addresses the validity of a life insurance policy in cases where the insured dies by their own act (such as suicide) or suffers capital punishment. In summary, the section provides that if the policy states that it will be void if the insured dies by their own act or is executed within a stipulated period, the policy cannot be void for any period exceeding 2 years from the policy’s issue date, regardless of what the policy conditions say. If the insured dies by their own act or is executed after the stipulated period or after 2 years from the policy’s issue date (whichever is sooner), the policy will not be void. Further, if the policy does not contain such a provision, it remains valid regardless of when the insured dies by their own act or suffers capital punishment. In simple terms, after two years from the issue date of the policy, the insurance company cannot avoid the policy based on the insured’s suicide or capital punishment. We hope this has clarified your query. Should you have more questions, your lawyer can guide you further.