Wedding didn’t go as planned

I got married in April at a beautiful beach hotel in Dar es Salaam. The venue was elegantly decorated, and guests arrived punctually. Everything seemed perfect, except for three significant disasters. First, my tailor, who is based in Jangwani, unexpectedly closed his shop on my wedding day, leaving me without my groom’s attire. I had no option but to wear beach pants and a casual coat instead. Second, during the ceremony, my bride chose not to recite her vows because she was unhappy with my outfit. The ceremony continued without her uttering a word. Moreover, the weather was foul that day. No bride wants rain on her wedding day (especially for a beach wedding), which was the third disaster of the day. I recognised my bride’s anger and disappointment. It was her special day, and I, as the groom, had ruined it. However, I felt it wasn’t my fault and the tailor was to blame. Now, I am left contemplating my legal options: Can I sue the tailor for failing to deliver my outfit? Also, does the bride’s refusal to say her vows mean our marriage is legally invalid? Please advise me as this marriage has started in the wrong footing.
GM, Dar es Salaam

We regret to learn that your beach wedding did not go as expected. Your circumstances raise two separate legal matters. The first involves the tailor’s breach of contract. It is assumed that you had a contract with the tailor, either written or verbal, that specified a delivery deadline, which the tailor did not meet. Consequently, you may have grounds to pursue a claim for breach of contract. Essentially, a breach of contract happens when one party to a legally binding agreement fails to uphold their promised commitments. This can include late payments or delivering incorrect products or services. It occurs when one party fails to adhere to the terms outlined in the agreement. To successfully claim breach of contract, you must demonstrate the existence of a valid contract, prove that the other party breached it, establish the damages incurred, and show a causal relationship between the breach and the harm suffered. Thus, the viability of your case depends on aspects such as whether you made payment, whether a formal agreement exists, and whether the tailor’s failure resulted in quantifiable financial or emotional losses.

Note that there are exceptions to the general rule of liability, which can include situations where the breach is excused or justified by specific circumstances or legal doctrine. These exceptions can allow a party to avoid liability for failing to fulfill their contractual obligations. For example, a key exception is force majeure, which refers to an unforeseen and uncontrollable event that prevents a party from fulfilling its obligations. Suppose the closure was due to unforeseen circumstances, such as flooding (Jangwani is notoriously prone to flooding) or a government order (for example, an evacuation order from the flooded area). In that case, the tailor’s liability might be limited. Since we do not have all the facts, we advise that you consult your lawyer for further guidance.

The second issue concerns the bride’s refusal to recite her vows. Marriage matters are governed by the Law of Marriage Act Cap. 29 [R.E 2019]. Under this law, consent is essential, and according to case law, exchanging vows serves as evidence of a person’s consent to marry. According to section 38, if either party’s consent wasn’t given freely and voluntarily, the marriage could be declared a nullity. If the bride declined to recite her vows, indicating her unwillingness to wed, the ceremony might be deemed void. However, if she chose to continue with the ceremony without reciting her vows but still participated in other rites, such as exchanging rings and signing the marriage certificate, this implies her consent, rendering her silence a mere procedural issue. Section 41(e) clarifies that a marriage which meets all other legal requirements remains valid, despite any procedural irregularity. Your lawyer can guide you further.

UNESCO World Heritage Site

The other day, while listening to the radio, I came across news about lawyers contesting a development project within a UNESCO site. I missed the entire discussion, but remember that the area in question is recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage site. What are the legal implications of this? Could you please clarify?
NB, Manyara

A UNESCO World Heritage site is a place that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) recognises for its cultural, historical, or scientific significance. These locations are considered to have outstanding universal value for humanity. They are protected by an international treaty known as the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), as well as the national laws of the countries in which they are located. Being designated as a UNESCO heritage site carries various legal implications. Primarily, it imposes a legal duty on the host nation to safeguard and uphold the site’s values, as specified in the Convention.

Tanzania is home to numerous UNESCO World Heritage sites that hold both natural and cultural significance. Notable sites include the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, a mixed heritage site featuring a volcanic caldera, grasslands, and the coexistence of wildlife and humans; the Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and the Ruins of Songo Mnara, which showcase the cultural heritage of the Swahili city-states with their rich architectural history; and Serengeti National Park, recognised for its incredible wildlife and the famous great migration, an annual wildlife event occurring between Tanzania and Kenya. We appreciate your interest in staying informed about the latest news. For further information on these sites and their legal protections in Tanzania, consult a lawyer specialising in this area.