Satardin v Mahomed and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1928)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
A betrothal to which one of the persons whose marriage was contemplated was not a party cannot be enforced. Parents in Uganda have no authority to contract for the marriage of their children, whether they profess the Mohammedan religion or not. The contract is a marriage brokerage contract void as against public policy. However, the appellant may sue for return of presents given and money spent in contemplation of marriage, but not for an injunction or moral damages.
Outcome
Matter remitted to High Court for determination of claim for return of presents and money spent in contemplation of marriage
Facts
In July 1925 at Jinja, the appellant's brother arranged a betrothal on his behalf with the first respondent for marriage to the first respondent's daughter, the second respondent. A ceremony of betrothal took place according to custom. The appellant made presents to the second respondent and her sisters and incurred expenses in contemplation of the marriage. The first respondent refused to ratify the contract and the second respondent declined to proceed with the marriage. The appellant sued claiming a declaration that the betrothal was valid, return of presents or their value, special damages of Sh. 3,625, general damages of Sh. 5,000, and an injunction restraining the second respondent from marrying anyone else. The trial judge struck out the plaint, holding the betrothal void as the woman was not a party to it and the father had no authority to contract for his daughter's marriage.
Issues
- Whether a betrothal arranged by a parent without the consent of the daughter is enforceable in Uganda.
- Whether parents in Uganda have authority to contract for the marriage of their children under Mohammedan law.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to recover presents given and money spent in contemplation of the marriage.
Orders
- Appeal allowed in part.
- Case remitted to the Court below for determination of the claim for return of presents and money spent.
- Appellant to have costs of the appeal.
- Costs in the Court below to follow the event of the ultimate finding.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (3)
- Johnstone v Beattie (1843) 10 Cl & F 42
- Narain Singh v Ganga Singh and Another (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1926)
- Hermann v Charlesworth [1905] 2 KB 123
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.