Paulo v. Ramadhani. (Pc) Civ. App. 117-M-69; 10/3/70; Seaton J.

Paulo v. Ramadhani. (Pc) Civ. App. 117-M-69; 10/3/70; Seaton J.

The father of the appellant had paid Shs. 100/- to the Respondent Ramadhani “Kufunga Mlango” and had rendered services valued at Shs. 1,191/90. This was in respect of the appellants’ prospective wife, Asha, Ramadhani’s daughter. The issue of Muslim Law involved was whether this was to be regarded as a present, in which case no refund would be payable, or as dowry.

            Held: (1) “The position in Muslim law regarding the three questions posed in the earlier consideration of this case seems to be as follows:- (a) Services which are performed by the prospective husband to his prospective wife’s parents may be regarded as a kind of present but if recorded, they may constitute part of the dowry. (b) (i) If the prospective husband dies, then it is regarded as bad luck and the dowry is not refundable; (ii) however, dowry that consists of money which is paid to the bride at the time of the marriage can be refunded. (c) The amount to be refunded under 2(ii) above will be negotiated between the heir of the man and the parents of the woman. (2) “Applying these principles of law to the facts of this case, it seems to me that if the father of the appellant Paul had paid Shs. 100/- to the respondent Ramadhani “kufunga mlango” and had rendered services valued at Shs. 1,191/90, this should be regarded as a present, in which case no refund is payable. But even if it were to be regarded as dowry (as the primary court believed it was), remission in whole or in part is a matter of grace for the prospective wife, i.e. Asha, the daughter of Ramadhani; it is not a matter that is enforceable by suit.” (3) Appeal dismissed.