Issa v. Bura (P.C.) Civ. App. 21-DDM-71; 1/5/72; Mnzavas, J.

 Issa v. Bura (P.C.) Civ. App. 21-DDM-71; 1/5/72; Mnzavas, J.

The appellant, Mohamed Issa, received two head of cattle from Seleman as refund of his bridewealth. The appellant who had paid three head of cattle and wished the third beast to be refunded in kind, rejected Shs. 100/= which Seleman had offered in lieu of the beast. The appellant believed that Seleman was not telling the truth in saying that the beast had been sold to Bura. He therefore filed a claim in the Primary Court and was awarded judgment and an order directing Seleman to hand over the beast from Seleman, after unsuccessfully suing Seleman, finally sued Mohamed Issa (appellant), and claiming the same beast. He lost the claim. Consequently he appealed to the District Court and his appeal was allowed. On appeal to the High court.

            Held; (1) “Under Section 41 of the law of Persons, Govt. Notice No. 279/63, “the son-in-law can demand that the original beasts of bridewealth are returned to him if they are still in the possession of the father-in-law.” (2) “From the above evidence it is amply clear that at the time of the claim of refund of dowry by the appellant Seleman had sold the third head of cattle to the respondent who had in turn exchanged it for another head of cattle when he decided to exchange it for another beast. As the head of cattle was no longer in the possession of Seleman Sachu, at the time the appellant claimed for refund of dowry the best he could did was to claim money in lieu of the cow. Under section 11 A. Of Government Notice No. 279/1963 he is entitled to Shs. 100/= refund by Seleman Sachu as value of the third head of cattle which has not been paid to him. The learned district magistrate’s decision is in harmony with the evidence and is hereby upheld.”