Nyakanga v. Mehego (PC) Civ. App. 77-M-70; 28/7/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

Nyakanga v. Mehego (PC) Civ. App. 77-M-70; 28/7/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

The appellant sued the respondent for unpaid bridewealth in respect of his daughter. The evidence was that the respondent and the appellant’s daughter were living together, the girl having eloped to live with him. The primary court found for the appellant but the district court reversed holding that as the respondent did not wish to marry, he could not be forced to marry.

            Held: (1) “With due respect to the appellate District Court, there was no question of anybody being forced to marry in this case. The issue was whether, on the facts, circumstances and the customary law, the respondent was married to the appellant’s daughter. It may be that not much weight can be put on the contradictory states of mind of the respondent, but it cannot be ignored that he categorically considered the appellant’s daughter as his “wife”. This came out from his own mouth although later on he said that he did not wish to marry. The stand taken by respondent seems to be inexcusable. He wants to have the appellant’s daughter in his house without paying for it.  He cannot be expected to have his own way if he was interested in the appellant’s daughter. The fact that she is still living with the respondent would indicate that he wanted to continue living with her.” (2) “Besides this, the trial court specifically held that the respondent eloped or abducted the appellant’s daughter and therefore by this process their customary law (Kuria) considered the respondent as having been validly married. The appellate court did not direct its mind to this custom. I find. There was nothing wrong when the trial court held that he was validly married and that the remaining issue was only that of payment of reasonable brideprice.” (3) “The trial court held that 33 heads of cattle were reasonable amount as that was “the standard” brideprice of the Kuria tribe, and ordered that the respondent should pay the balance of 23 heads of cattle.” (4) Appeal allowed.