Amani Chogo Chacha v. Rioa Nyamtara, (PC) Civ. App. 115-M-66, 24/10/67, Mustafa J.
Chogo and his wife were divorced in 1947. Chogo was awarded the return of the ten cattle he had paid as bride wealth, even thought two children had been born during the marriage. The basis for the divorce was adultery and excessive drinking on the part of the wife. Riobo, the brother of the former wife of Chogo brought this action for the return of the ten cattle claiming that because children were born, Chogo should not have had the bride wealth returned to him. The primary court held that his action was time-barred, being filed in 1965, eighteen years after the divorce. The district court, noting that Chogo, who was a local chief, had presided over the court that had granted the divorce, declared the divorce to be illegally obtained and void, because Chogo had been an interested party and should not have presided over the court. This meant that Chogo and his wife were still legally married, so Chogo never had a claim for the return of the cattle, so Chogo never had a claim for the return of the cattle, and they should be returned to Riobo.
Held: (1) The district court erred in ignoring the judgment of divorce obtained by Chogo, notwithstanding the method by which it was obtained. A judgment remains in force until upset by a superior court, and the earlier judgment had never been appealed. (2) The principle that a husband cannot recover bride wealth if there have been children born during the marriage applies only when there are no grounds for the divorce offered by either party. If the divorce is based on the wife’s wrongdoing the court may, in its discretion, order return of some or all of the bride wealth to the husband despite the fact that there were children born during the marriage. (3) This action was time-barred. It is against public policy to allow matters which have been decided to be re-opened many years later, Chogo need not return the ten cattle.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.