Boke v. Mwese (PC) Civ. App. 99-M-70; 10/5/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

Boke v. Mwese (PC) Civ. App. 99-M-70; 10/5/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

       The appellant/wife was married to the respondent/husband being one of the many wives the respondent married. Respondent owned plenty of heads of cattle which accrued as a result of joint labour of his wives, including dowry from his daughters. After about 20 years the parties divorced and the appellant’s brother successor to their late father refunded 24 of the 30 heads of cattle respondent had paid as dowry to marry the appellant. The appellant then claimed ten head of cattle for her maintenance as divorced woman and a share in her husband’s property. The trial court found for the appellant but the district court reversed on the grounds that: (a) the appellant was not the appropriate person to sue for the return of the bride price and (b) the appellant was not entitled to any maintenance as she was married a year after divorce.

                        Held: (1) “With due respect to the appellate magistrate, the setting aside of the entire award is not justified in law or in good conscience. I agree that if he appellant was seeking a return of partly paid bride-wealth, by her brother, she was mistaken, as she was not a party to that case, but this was not so, as the learned magistrate misconstrued her claim. She did not say that she was suing for the bride-wealth partly returned by her brother. She simply said that she was suing for maintenance of divorced woman. Indeed she went further to explain in detail how she and the other wives had materially contributed to the wealth of the respondent. None of this was disputed by the respondent. Indeed, he seemed to have agreed that she had contributed to his present wealth, but he was not prepared to pay anything although he conceded that she was entitled to a share. This seems to me to be unreasonable approach. He had lived with this woman since 1951 to 1968, and she had, every year, contributed to the wealth of the household. And he was to blame for the break-up of the marriage. In all the circumstances, therefore, she was entitled (a) to a maintenance for a divorced woman even for a year when she remained unmarried and (b) to a share of the joint wealth. In all the circumstances, it was not unreasonable to claim only 10 heads of cattle out of the varying total of 100 and 148 heads of cattle.” (2) Respondent to pay 10 heads of cattle both as maintenance for the period appellant remained unmarried and as a share in the joint property.