Efforts should be made to ensure that marriage is salvaged. It is in this understanding that the Law of Marriage Act provides for the Marriage Conciliation Boards (MCBs) whose main role is to conciliate spouses of shaking marriages. That is why the law provides that all divorce proceedings should be preceded by conciliation before MCBs. It is only when the MCBs fail to conciliate the parties to the marriages that courts are invited to dissolve such marriages. In view of this requirement, this paper seeks to analyse the legal and institutional framework on MCBs in Tanzania. The study employed a doctrinal research whereby various sources were reviewed and analysed. They included text books, peer-reviewed journals, official reports, statutes, subsidiary legislation and case-law. In the course of analysis, a number of decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal of Tanzania are cited to show proper interpretation of relevant provisions of the Law of Marriage Act. It is only in instances where the court is satisfied that there are extraordinary circumstances which make reference to the Board impracticable that matrimonial disputes go straight to court seeking for petition for divorce. The study identifies some challenges that affect effective operation of MCBs as envisaged by the law. They include lack of training and adequate skills to members of the boards and married, spouses opting for improper fora, handling of matrimonial cases by petitioners and lawyers, and inadequate skills by judicial officers of lower courts. The paper finds that MCBs are very important in bringing estranged spouses together through conciliation and that it only where a marriage has irretrievably broken down then courts of law are invited to entertain divorce proceedings. Thus, the following recommendations are made with the view to improving operationalisation of MCBs: the need for legal education to members of the public, strengthening legal-institutional capacity of members of MCBs and needed training for magistrates on legal-institutional framework governing matrimonial matters.
Abdulrahman O.J. Kaniki (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: