Matiko Chacha v. Mathias Mwita, (PC) Civ. App. 59-D-68, 19/8/69, Saidi J.

Matiko Chacha v. Mathias Mwita, (PC) Civ. App. 59-D-68, 19/8/69, Saidi J.

The appellant had married the respondent’s daughter and lived with her for 4 years, during which time she had given birth to twins. He then refused to cohabit with her due to a local belief over the matter of twins. Consequently, there was a divorce, and 15 cattle were refunded to the appellant out of 23, with a balance of cattle left over as consideration for the length of the marriage and the twins born. The woman subsequently remarried, and hr father, the respondent, received dowry from the new husband. The appellant now claims, apparently, the return of the remaining 8 cattle of his original dowry.

Held: The evidence shows that on the remarriage of the wife, her father recovered 15 head of cattle only from the second husband, to replace those he had given out to her earlier husband. Although the father of the earlier husband alleges that 38 cattle were paid over on the second marriage, he has produced no evidence to support this allegation. I will, therefore, take it as established that only 15 head of cattle were received on the second marriage. If that is so, there is o balance of the bride-price to be paid back to the first husband. In fact, the first husband is very lucky to have more than half of the bride-price paid back when the marriage had issue and as was responsible for the breakdown of the marriage itself. But …. The provisions of the Customary Law Declaration do not contain anything that covers a situation

such as this. I do not think it will be proper to allow the father of any girl to continue to get bride-price from the girl’s subsequent marriages with other men without refunding proportionate parts of the earlier bride-price received in the provisions marriages, even in cases where previous marriages had lasted long and there was also issue of such marriage. This, as I have said, would encourage unscrupulous fathers to induce their daughters to break their marriages so that they could be married again and again, to make it possible for them to get more and more bride-price. In the present case, proportionate refund of the brideprice has been affected, and the complaints of the appellant are, therefore, unfounded.” Appeal dismissed with costs.