Love fraud

I am a man aged 39 living in Dodoma. For over three years, I was engaged to a woman and repeatedly promised her that we would marry. During this period, she devoted considerable time to me and supported me in many personal ways, including with household responsibilities. Recently, however, I met another woman whom I believe is better suited to me, and I decided to terminate my engagement. My fiancée now feels misled and wants to take legal action against me for breaking my promise to marry her. She has reported me to the police for being a fraud. I want to know whether my decision constitutes a criminal offence under Tanzanian law. Please assist me, as there is a warrant for my arrest and I am very scared.

VC, Dodoma

From an emotional perspective, you hurt your former fiancé by ending the relationship. From a legal standpoint, your decision to terminate the engagement does not constitute a criminal offence under the Tanzanian Penal Code. The law does not criminalise breaking a promise to marry, so the warrant is invalid unless you have committed some other crime. Nonetheless, section 69(1) of the Law of Marriage Act, Cap. 29 [R.E. 2023] provides that a suit may be brought for damages for breach of a promise of marriage made in Tanzania, whether the breach occurred in Tanzania or elsewhere.

The law sets certain conditions, such as no suit can be brought against a person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the promise, and damages awarded cannot exceed the actual loss suffered, specifically, expenditure incurred directly as a result of the promise. Additionally, the law does not permit suits for specific performance, meaning no one can be compelled by the Courts to marry.

There is also a time limitation under section 70 of the Law of Marriage Act, which states that no suit shall be brought more than 1 year after the date of the breach. In your case, this means that if your former fiancée wishes to pursue damages, she must do so within 1 year of the decision to end the engagement. Furthermore, if she made monetary contributions to your life in reliance on the promise to marry, she may pursue civil proceedings to recover those sums. While you have no criminal issues, be mindful of civil exposure and consult your lawyer for guidance.

Negotiated for years, Court now says I’m too late

I operated a licensed bureau de change business in Dar es Salaam. One morning in early 2017, officials from government authorities came to my offices, seized large sums of money in various currencies, removed office equipment, and shut down all my branches. I was never charged with a crime. After that, I did not rush to Court. Instead, I wrote letters. I visited offices. I spoke to officials. I even involved the Ministry responsible for finance. For years, I believed the matter could be resolved administratively. I was advised to push for an out-of-court resolution to avoid litigation. It was onlyin mid 2025, after all these efforts failed, that I finally went to the High Court to seek compensation for my seized funds, lost business, and damages under the law of torts. To my shock, the case was dismissed before it was even heard. The Court said my case was ‘time-barred.’ Is it really fair that the Court refuses to listen to my case simply because I spent time trying to resolve the matter through communication with government authorities? Doesn’t justice require flexibility in such situations?I believe it is my constitutional right to be heard by the courts. Please advise me.

SM, Dar es Salaam

Thank you for sharing your experience. Many people in your position would have done exactly what you did by trying to resolve the dispute through dialogue rather than rushing to Court. However, under Tanzanian law, your case illustrates a hard but settled legal principle that time does not stop running simply because parties are communicating or negotiating.

The Court of Appeal has made it clear in several cases that even prolonged correspondence with government authorities or hopes of an administrative solution do not suspend the statutory limitation period. In your situation, the acts you complained of occurred in early 2017. From that moment, the law began counting time against you, and for suits founded on tort, the limitation period is 3 years as prescribed in the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 [R. E. 2023]. By the time you filed your case in mid-2025, that period had long expired, making the Court legally powerless to hear the merits of your claim, regardless of how genuine or serious it was.

As to whether justice should allow flexibility where a person has acted patiently and in good faith, unfortunately, the Courts have consistently held that limitation of actions is not a mere technicality, but it goes to the very jurisdiction of the Court. Once time has expired, the Court cannot hear the case. This is why your argument that your constitutional right to be heard had been violated cannot succeed. Again, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly held that constitutional principles cannot be used to override clear statutory commands, particularly where Parliament has expressly fixed time limits. In other words, a Court cannot hear a case simply because every person has the constitutional right to be heard, it must first have legal authority to do so.

The lesson from your experience is painful but essential for the public. Negotiation is not legal protection. You can talk, write letters, and pursue administrative remedies, but you must always keep one eye on the legal deadline. The safer course is to file the case within time and continue negotiations in parallel. Courts have repeatedly warned that a person who delays legal action in the hope of a settlement does so at their own risk. We understand your frustration and hope you find a way around this with your lawyer by continuing with the non-litigation route.