Mazunguewa d/o Chilennu v. Mwango s/o Chilennu. Civ. App. 260-D-68 31/10/69; Georges C.J.

Mazunguewa d/o Chilennu v. Mwango s/o Chilennu. Civ. App. 260-D-68 31/10/69; Georges C.J.

The appellant was the sister of the respondent, not born of the same mother but having the same father. They were both Wagogo. On the marriage of the appellant’s daughter 16 cows and 24 goats were given as dowry. Of these, 4 cows and 3 goats were given to the mother of the appellant as her share of what is called “upande wa kushoto”. The respondent claimed that as the appellant had no brothers on the maternal side, he, as paternal brother, was entitled to receive the entire share of the dowry belonging to the “upande wa kushoto”. He succeeded in both courts below and the appellant challenges these decisions.

            Held: (1) “The Customary Law Declaration Law of Persons GN. 279/63 – made applicable to Dodoma District by GN 303 of 1963 provides as follows …..[the judge then quoted the sections] “It is quite clear from this that the person responsible for receiving the brideprice and distributing it is the father. In this case the respondent sued the mother. I do not think he was entitled to do so. Accordingly the action should have failed from the beginning as the wrong person had been sued. If the respondent has in fact taken any animals from the appellant he is to return them to her”. (2) “It is quite likely that he respondent may, as a result of this judgment, decide to begin this action all over again by filing a suit against the father

for this share of the “mahri ya upande wa kushoto”. I would take this opportunity, therefore, to state that this alleged Gogo custom of allocating a fixed and fairly substantial share of the dowry to the maternal uncle of the brie seems unreasonable. He may have taken no part nor may he have expended any effort on the upbringing of the girl whose dowry is being paid. It seems sheer exploitation in such circumstances to claim a significant share of the dowry on the basis of customs which must have been formed when conditions were substantially different from what they are today. The rule in the Customary Law Declaration quoted above that the distribution of the dowry should be left to the father and should depend upon agreement between him and the other relatives seems to me excellent and to reflect the developing spirit of modern days. It is of the greatest importance to maintain the solidarity of the family group. This, however, can only be based on the mutual rendering of assistance among members. When benefits are to be shared, this can be done with regard to the degree with which attention and assistance have been given in the past, not merely on the strength of the relationship itself”. (3) Appeal allowed and the animals to be returned to the appellant.