Marriage ceremony without witnesses

I am a young businessman based in Lindi and wish to marry an elderly woman who recently divorced her husband. Because of our age difference, my fiancé and I have faced strong resistance from our respective families. Despite this resistance, we intend to get married secretly. Is it possible to get married without inviting family or friends as witnesses?
DH, Lindi.

The Law of Marriage Act [Cap. 29 R.E 2019] governs all matters related to marriages in Tanzania. According to section 27(1) of the law, every marriage shall be contracted in the presence of at least two witnesses. The law does not require that the witness be family or friends. However, no person shall be competent to act as a witness to a marriage who is below the age of 18 years or who is unable to understand the nature of the ceremony because of mental illness or intoxication or who does not know the language in which the ceremony is conducted unless the whole ceremony is interpreted into a language which he or she can understand. This means any person can witness a marriage if they are competent. Remember, there must be at least 2 competent witnesses. Failure to adhere to this is an offence which, according to section 154 of the law, attracts a fine not exceeding TZS 2,000. We wish you all the best in your upcoming nuptials.

Conviction on circumstantial evidence

My aunt was convicted of murder just because she was the first person to find the deceased. According to her, she visited her friend’s house only to find a naked body in the living room. To preserve the dignity of her friend, she decided to dress her up before calling the neighbours and the police. I do not think the Court made a justifiable decision since no eyewitness saw my aunty commit the crime. Is it proper for a Court of law to rely on circumstantial evidence? Kindly guide me.
LM, Kigoma

In the administration of justice, Courts prefer direct evidence since it is based on a witness’s knowledge of facts and links the accused person directly to the crime. Nonetheless, Courts may grant conviction solely on circumstantial evidence. In several cases, the Courts have articulated the basic test that must be fulfilled for conviction to rely solely on circumstantial evidence. In summary, Courts have a settled view that the circumstantial evidence must lead to the inference that the accused and no one else committed the offence. Further, such evidence must also be incapable of any other interpretation than pointing towards the guilt of the accused. You will note that this is a very difficult test, which is why circumstantial evidence is relied upon in very few exceptional cases. We cannot comment on your aunt’s conviction since we do not have all the facts of the case. Your lawyer can guide you further.

Subrogation of insurance

We are an insurance company based in Morogoro. Our client, who owned a very expensive car, was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a passenger bus of a famous transportation company (whose name we wish not to disclose). Our client had insured his vehicle under comprehensive insurance coverage with us. We promptly paid our client as per his insurance cover and later pursued the transportation company with a claim to reimburse the amount paid to the client. This is an accepted insurance practice referred to as subrogation. We have learnt that the transportation company has insurance coverage with its insurer. However, the insurance coverage was paid at a very low premium, which, in valuation, will not cover the entire amount we paid to our client.  This has made us uncertain about the amount we will likely recover under subrogation. Please guide us.
MK, Morogoro

Subrogation describes a legal right held by insurance carriers to legally pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured. The right developed from the common law practices used by English Courts in adjudicating insurance disputes and is referred to as the doctrine of subrogation. In principle, the doctrine of subrogation provides that upon payment of compensation to the victim (the insured) of an accident/insured risk, the insurer has the right to step into the shoes of the insured (client) and sue the one who caused the accident/insured risk (third party) to recover the money insurer paid to the client.

In most subrogation cases, an individual’s insurance company pays its client’s claim directly and then seeks reimbursement from the other party’s insurance company. In some instances, insurance policies may contain language that entitles an insurer, once losses are paid on claims, to seek recovery of funds from a third party if that party caused the loss. It is also worth noting that the insurer’s right to claim under the doctrine of subrogation limits the insurer’s claim against the third party to the right of the insured, that is, she cannot claim more than what would have been claimed by the insured. Tanzanian courts have relied on English case law to interpret the doctrine of subrogation in their own decisions.

From what you have disclosed, it is clear that your claim is for reimbursement of the entire amount paid to the client. At this juncture, it is worth noting that your claim against the other insurance company cannot be more than what your client would have been paid from the transportation company’s insurers. We have reviewed similar insurance cases and found that payment under the right to claim against a third party is limited to the third party’s insurance cover note. Therefore, you will be reimbursed in accordance with the third party’s insurance cover note, which, unfortunately, as you said, is lower than the entire amount paid to the client. Your lawyer can guide you further.