Abdallah Khamisi Telekelo v. Salima d/o Hokelai, (PC) Civ. App. 221-D-68, 14/8/69, Duff J.

Abdallah Khamisi Telekelo v. Salima d/o Hokelai, (PC) Civ. App. 221-D-68, 14/8/69, Duff J.

The appellant and respondent were married under Muslim Law and cohabited for 14 months, the respondent then obtaining a divorce. Before the marriage, the respondent professed the Christian religion, but was converted to Islam upon her marriage. At the time of the divorce, a sheikh discussed the obligation of Eda with the respondent, she claiming that as she had been reconverted to Christianity, she was not bound by Muslim customs. Thereafter, she associated with a third party, and became pregnant within a month after the divorce. The appellant claimed paternity of the unborn child on the grounds that the respondent was bound to observe Eda. And that he was entitled to have the child which was conceived within the period specified. Both the courts below held for the respondent. On further appeal.

Held: (1) “When the divorce was granted, the respondent was medically examined and it was accepted that she was no then pregnant Assuming for the moment that the respondent was bond to observe Eda would it follow that the appellant was entitled to have the child which was conceived during the period specified? There is no suggestion that the parties had access to each other at any time when the child would have been begotten, and the facts which were established indicate clearly that the appellant could not e the father. If the child cannot be of the appellant, Eda or the non-observance of it does not entitle him to be declared the author of the pregnancy.”  (2) Normally where a person is converted to Islam, the Muhammedan law applies immediately, and it would appear equitable that if a Muslim is converted to Christianity, the Muslim Law ceases to have any continuing obligatory force upon the convert.” (3) Appeal dismissed.