Satardin v Mohamed and Another (C.A. 14-1928.)

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.

Holding

A betrothal to which one of the persons whose marriage was contemplated was not a party will not 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 betrothal contract is void as a marriage brokerage contract against public policy. However, the appellant may be entitled to sue for the return of presents given and money spent in contemplation of the 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 (father) for marriage to the second respondent (daughter). A betrothal ceremony took place according to custom. The appellant gave presents to the second respondent and her sisters and incurred expenses in contemplation of the marriage. The first respondent subsequently refused to ratify the contract, and the second respondent declined to proceed with the marriage. The appellant sued claiming the betrothal was valid and subsisting, seeking return of presents or their value, special damages of Sh. 3,625, moral and intellectual 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

1. Whether a betrothal arranged by a parent without the consent of the daughter is enforceable in Uganda.
2. Whether parents in Uganda have authority to contract for the marriage of their children under Mohammedan law.
3. 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 (10 C.L. and F. 42)
• Narain Singh v Ganga Singh and Another (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1926)
• Hermann v Charlesworth [1905] 2 KB 123

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.