AZIZA v. IDDI (1972) HCD 16

PC) Civ. App. 4-Dodoma-72; 5/2/72

Kwikima Ag. J.

The appellant’s father died when she was still an infant. The respondent, the brother of the deceased, inherited his estate and acted as Walii to the appellant when she grew up and married. Before her marriage, however, she was living with her maternal uncle who assumed full responsibility of bringing her up. Her husband with whom she was living paid two cows and 13 goats as her bride price. There was conflicting evidence as to how much of he bride price the respondent received. The issue was whether the appellant can sue to recover her own bride price from her uncle who inherited her father’s estate in accordance with the laws of the Warangi. The Primary Court ruled that the appellant should receive back from her own paternal uncle the bride price paid to him by her husband. This decision was reversed on appeal to the District Court.

HELD:

(1) “The appellant’s claim must have been brought under customary law, for it was under customary law that the respondent was declared the heir to her father’s property. The only other law under which this suit could have been brought was Moslem law but I doubt if the parties and especially the appellant intended that the suit should be decided according to Moslem law. Under Moslem law, the dowry would have been negotiable between her and her suitor. It would then able paid to her and she would choose who to entrust or give it to. But according to the evidence given originally, the bride price was negotiated by the respondent and her mother. This practice is in accordance with the customs of African tribes such as the Warangi. The law governing bride price was from the beginning that of the Warangi. According to that law, i.e. Warangi customary law, this suit was found by the assessors to be not tenable. It was for the appellant to prove that according to the customs of the Warangi a wife could claim her bride price from those entitled to it such as her guardian or her uncle. This the appellant id not even attempt to show. All she did was to prove that the respondent received her bride price – a fact the respondent has at no time denied. Those assessors who ere presented with the issue emphatically denied the existence of such custom as would support the appellants claim.” 

(2) Appeal dismissed.