Grace Lumenyela v Elizabeth Rutakupa 1983 Tlr 97 (Hc)

GRACE LUMENYELA v ELIZABETH RUTAKUPA 1983 TLR 97 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Tabora

Judge Chipeta J

May 3, 1983

(PC) CIVIL APPEAL 8 OF 1982. E

Flynote

Family Law-Refund of bridewealth after dissolution of marriage- Whether daughter can claim bridewealth from parents-Bridewealth as property of the parents. F

-Headnote

The parties to this appeal are daughter and mother, the appellant being the daughter of the respondent. The appellant had claimed, and lost, in the lower courts three issues of cow which had been paid to her parents as bridewealth in respect of her marriage. The original cow had subsequently been refunded to the former husband of the appellant upon the dissolution of their marriage. The issue on appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to claim the bridewealth from her parents.

Held: The appellant had no right over the animals because, by custom, bride wealth is the property of the parents of the daughter.

Case Information

Appeal dismissed.

No case referred to.

[zJDz]Judgment

Chipeta, J.: The parties to this appeal are daughter and mother, the appellant being the daughter of the respondent.

The undisputed facts of the case which I find rather amusing, are that when the appellant married her husband, the said husband paid to the mother of the appellant one cow as customary bridewealth. That marriage was blessed with five children. Subsequently, the marriage broke up. Meanwhile, the cow had reproduced several times.

After the break-up of the marriage, the appellant's husband claimed from the respondent his one cow which he had paid as bride wealth. The respondent duly refunded one cow, but remained with three, the issues of the original cow.

Meanwhile, the appellant, who had custody of the five children of the marriage, went to live independently. She filed a suit against her mother claiming the three cows on the ground that they were her property as they were as a result of her bridewealth.

As would be expected, the trial Primary Court dismissed the suit, and her appeal to the District Court was also dismissed. This, then, is her second appeal.

The two courts were unanimously of the view that the appellant had no right over the animals because, by custom, bridewealth is the property of the parents of the daughter. Without further discussion, I fully agree with that reasoning.

If the appellant wants maintenance for her children, she is advised to sue her erstwhile husband for the same. She has no right to claim the bridewealth as her property. That remains the property of her parents. They can only part with that property and give it or any part of it to the appellant on the basis of a moral and not legal obligation.

For these reasons, this appeal is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

1983 TLR p99

A