 |
| Legality of anal sex |
|
My brother has been having anal sex with his wife for many years now. Is this allowed in our laws and how can I put a stop to this behavior? Am I not in a peculiar situation? What other thoughts do you have? |
| HF, Dar |
We are unsure how you came to find out about your brother’ behaviour. We hope you have not been peeping because that could be a breach of your brother’s privacy. We shall not dwell on this breach as this is not the subject matter of your question.
The law governing such behavior is the penal code which states in section 154 that any person who has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature or has carnal knowledge of an animal or permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature commits an offence.
As per the above, your brother’s act with his wife is carnal knowledge against the order of nature and is a criminal offence; it does not matter whether the wife consents or not. If they are convicted, they face upto life imprisonment.
A very charismatic Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, famously stated that “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the people.” What he meant was that the state cannot interfere in what happens by consent between adults in the bedroom. With this liberal approach the Canadians repealed their sodomy laws and we are informed that consensual anal sex between two adults is legal in Canada. This implies that what can lead to a life imprisonment in Tanzania is acceptable behavior in Canada.
As lawyers we are not qualified to comment on the peculiarity of your brother’s actions. On how you can put a stop to this, perhaps the couple can go for counseling and also be educated on the illegality of the habit. The other resort is for you to report this to the police where your challenge will be proving this behaviour. All in all, as stated before, if you have been |
|
| peeping, your brother may be able to take you to Court for breach of his privacy. |
| Bank refused to stop LC |
|
I opened a letter of credit (LC) in favour of a supplier in Asia who was to supply me certain goods. The contract was a cost insurance and freight (CIF) contract. When the bill of lading and other documents were presented to the bank in Tanzania, I immediately called my bank to get them stop the payment as I had information the goods were of an inferior quality. Despite having written an official letter, the bank proceeded to release the funds. My assumption was right as the goods indeed turned out to be of an inferior quality. The bank has refused to refund me my money. The supplier claims that the goods I ordered is what they delivered. My lawyer says we cannot sue the bank which doesn’t make sense to me. What should I do? |
| DF, Dar |
In a CIF contract your bank is supposed to release the funds as soon as the supplier has complied with the terms of the contract which includes providing the original invoice, an insurance policy and the bill of lading.
Unless it is expressly stated in the contract that the bank shall not release funds until a certificate as to quality is issued, which does not seem to be the case here, the bank is not duty bound to check or wait for any such verification.
There is a plethora of cases on the above and with the information you have given us, we agree with your lawyer that it is very unlikely that you will be able to recover from your bank. Unfortunately your cause of action lies against the supplier of the goods and not the bank and we recommend that you proceed in that direction.
If you have information that the bank was involved in the mischief or that the fraud was known to the bank, you might have a parallel cause of action against the bank. Your lawyer can guide you further after understanding |
|
|
|
| the entire case. |
Claim rejected,
no insurable interest |
|
I am a real estate broker and earn a half months rent every year for property that I manage to lease on behalf of my clients who are ultimately the landlords. Two months ago one of the most prime properties that I had been involved in got gutted by fire. I have insurance against loss of business and had fully declared the source of income. The insurance company has come back saying I did not have insurable interest in the transaction and hence my claim has been rejected. My lawyers agree with the opinion of the insurer. What are your views? |
| PW, Dar |
The concept of insurance is that you cannot insure something that does not belong to you, or in which you do not have an interest. For example you cannot insure someone else’s house and have the insurance policy in your name. Even though initially the insurance company may collect the premium, at the time of the claim they will repudiate the claim since you do not have an interest in the property, what the insurers term insurable interest.
Coming to your question, it seems that you have a contract right which may actually be an insurable interest, even though you do not have rights specifically in the property that was gutted down by fire. This may sound like a radical opinion but you need to look at your insurance policy from this new angle.
The problem here is to develop a working guide for determining just what interrelation between contract performance and existence of the property insured suffices to constitute compliance with the requirement of insurable interest.
There are few cases allowing an insurable interest based on contract right without property right- your case seems to be one such case. We believe you have a good chance of pursuing this matter successfully against the insurance company. |
Send in your questions by
email to
qa@fbattorneys.com
or
by post to:
Q&A with FB Attorneys
C/O The
Daily News,
P.O. Box 9033,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
You can also read
the column online.
Logon to www.fbattorneys.com
and click on news. |
|
|
This column is intended to give you a general over view of
the Law. It is not a substitute
to the role of your legal advisor. If you
have legal issues, you are strongly recommended
to contact your Attorney. |
|