GINBUURO AND ANOTHER vs. KABA [1971]DLHC2118

Date	1971-05-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2118

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

G. Y. MAHAMA FOR THE APPELLANTS.

A. A. LUGUTERAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1971]DLHC2118
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >GINBUURO AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KABA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 416<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
26 MAY 1971.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

G. Y.
MAHAMA FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

A. A.
LUGUTERAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent was married to the daughter of the appellants under the customary
law of the Frafras. He had one child by his wife but for some reason the
marriage broke down. According to custom, therefore, the girl brought the
matter to the notice of her parents and requested them to go through the
formalities for the dissolution of the marriage. The parents contacted the
parents of the husband on the matter asking them, as custom demanded, for the
return of their “calabash.” (This euphemism is the symbolic language for asking
for the return of their daughter who in this graphic language is analogised to
that common receptacle — the calabash.) According to Frafra custom, the return
of the calabash constituted a dissolution of the marriage. The return of the
calabash is a privilege of the husband, that is, the husband’s family, never
that of the wife’s. If the request is met the marriage is brought to a peaceful
end. But there are occasions when the husband may refuse to meet the demand for
the return of the calabash. On such occasions, according to the custom, the
wife, or in fact her family, may then unilaterally consider the marriage to
have come to an end.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Matters
in this instant case would seem not to have taken the smooth course. The
request for the return of the calabash was not met. The first appellant deposed
in his evidence that, “when we informed the plaintiff’s father, he told us that
he would contact the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff’s father told us that the
plaintiff did not accept the divorce.” This was the explanation he gave for the
steps he took later by giving his daughter away in marriage to another man.
This explanation meant that upon the refusal of the respondent to return the
calabash the first appellant had considered the marriage between his daughter
and the respondent to have been dissolved. He therefore considered himself free
to give his daughter away once more.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
action was instituted by the respondent, the husband of the appellants’
daughter, against her parent claiming “N¢300.00 damages for giving his lawful
wife in marriage to one Victor Shandow.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellants pleaded liable with explanation. The explanation they gave is as
follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“That
there was a case which ended and later the girl in dispute called me and told
me that she was no longer interested to marry the plaintiff. I accompanied the
wife of the plaintiff to the plaintiff’s father to inform him that she was no
more interested in the plaintiff. Having heard that, I could not force her to
marry the plaintiff, because the woman was interested in him and married him,
but since, she has chosen to refuse him, and I cannot do anything. That is the
reason why I gave her out in marriage. “<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
magistrate did not find this explanation good enough and therefore entered
giving the woman out for marriage [was] not in accordance with our traditional
marriage.” He considered that the defendants’ action would have been justified
only if “the plaintiff failed to give them dowries.” or “if the plaintiff came
and told them that he would no longer marry their daughter.” He therefore
ordered “the defendants to return plaintiff’s wife to him or pay the damages
claimed by him so that they would compensate him for all inconveniences created
by them by taking his wife from h</main>