{Tanzanian woman, Jane Masabali, has lodged a preliminary objection at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court in Dar es Salaam seeking abatement of the adultery case against former Geita Member of Parliament (MP), Donald Kelvin Max (deceased).}
Through her advocate Capt. Ibrahim Bendela, the woman, who allegedly claimed to be the second wife of the ex-law maker, is seeking abatement of the case lodged by Russian lady, Mrs Elena Donald Max due to the death of her husband, who was also the second defendant in the matter.
Ms Masabali, who is the first defendant in the case, states in the grounds of objections that following the death of the former MP under CCM ticket, the Russian lady, who had been claiming to be the lawful wife of Max, lost the right to sue not only her (Ms Masabali) but also the deceased.
The case came for hearing before Principal Resident Magistrate Waliarwande Lema on Thursday. However, the session could not proceed because the advocate for the Russian woman, Mr Peter Bathuel, informed the court that the objections raised were similar with those raised earlier last year.
According to the advocate, such grounds were overruled by another magistrate, who heard the case at the preliminary stage on July 6, last year, He, therefore, questioned the rationale behind for counsel for the first defendant to raise them back a long time after the death of the MP in June last year. C
apt. Bedera however countered the argument presented by his co-advocate, submitting that the two sets of objections were filed under different laws. The previous objections, he said, were lodged in court under the Law of Marriage Act, while the present ones have been brought under Civil Procedure Code.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, Magistrate Lema said she would go through the case file to see or otherwise the similarities of the laws used in the two sets of grounds of objections and she would deliver her ruling on the matter on April 20.
In the main suit, Elena Max, who is suing through Rosemary Huhoja Max, seeks for declaratory orders over illegal marriage the former MP allegedly contracted with Jane. She also demands damages for alleged adultery.
Elena claims to be the legal wife of the late MP and that she discovered that her husband had contracted another marriage with Jane, who is claimed to have been collecting funds for purportedly assisting her and the legislator who was sick.
It is alleged in the plaint of the suit that on April 20, 1991, the plaintiff and the second defendant got lawful marriage in the Republic of Russia, following a certificate of no impendent issued by the Registrar of Marriage in Tanzania.
Having gotten married, the duo worked for gain sometimes in Russia and in the United Kingdom and were blessed with one child, who was born in London on November 13, 1992.
In 1995, the alleged couple moved to Geita as Mr Max was appointed the General Manager with Copcot Ginnery. Later, it is alleged that the first defendant (Jane) was employed as an office attendant, then a cook and thereafter as store clerk at the same Ginnery in the year 2001/2002 or there about.
All along, Jane allegedly knew of the marital status of the plaintiff and the second defendant. Due to the financial expedience and with the consent of the MP, the plaintiff and her son left for Russia to enable the son to obtain better education at Russian government’s expenses.
It is alleged that the couple agreed they would be spending some time in Russia or Tanzania so as to consummate their marriage and execute development plans and projects for the benefit of the family, a matter which they adhered to.
However, in the year 2013, the plaintiff got knowledge that the first defendant was “going around purporting to be the wife of the second defendant and she collected substantial sum of money for her own subsistence and travel as the wife of the (MP).”
Mrs Elena Donald Max claims further that Jane had also been collecting the money for up keep of the legislator in hospital in India, a matter which prompted her and her son to come back to Tanzania in April, last year before the usual visitation time, with a view of following up the facts of the matter.
The plaint of the suit shows that the plaintiff “noted that the first defendant had enticed and clandestinely got married to the second defendant in spite of the restriction in the marriage celebrated by and between the plaintiff and the second defendant which declares the marriage to be monogamous.”
Leave a Reply