In most African customs and traditions, divorce is conducted and validated by the return of the bride price by the woman’s family to the man. I know for a fact that in my custom, if a woman is no longer interested in marrying the man, the family of the woman will gather the bride price or whatever that has been gifted or that stands as a bride price and return it to the man, this will traditionally and customarily mean that divorce has been conducted and the spouses are no longer married.
This custom of divorce by returning a bride price has been upheld by courts as a valid means of divorce as has been practiced customarily in most Nigerian customs and even extensively in Africa.
Some men who conducted their marriage customarily even now insist that if their wives are leaving or no longer want to marry them again, the wife must return the bride price and every other gift he has ever gifted the woman during the course of the marriage back to him. This demand from the man will inadvertently tie down the woman who may not afford to return the dowry paid and every gift she has ever received in the marriage.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
Recently, an Upper Customary Court in Kafanchan judicial division sitting at Gwantu, Kaduna state has declared this custom of a man demanding the woman to return the bride price he paid on her back to him before the divorce can be customarily validated to be repugnant to Natural Justice, Equity and good conscience. The court held that the Mada marriage custom and every other Nigerian custom and tradition that requires a departing wife to refund her husband’s dowry and other incidental expenses for her marriage as a ground for granting her divorce is repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience.
The court held that those customs demanding women to return dowry paid on their head have reduced women to mere chattels that are up for trade and can be returned whenever the buyer no longer sees fit in the item and the buyer can demand a refund of his money.
In this landmark Judgment delivered by His Worship, Emmanuel J. Samaila, in the case of Tina John v Adamu John, the court condemned the practice that reduces women married under customary law to the status of mere chattels acquired by men to be used and dumped at their pleasure and with effrontery as repugnant.
The court upheld the Petitioner’s position who had contended that the only ground upon which she will make such a refund is if the respondent can restore her body to its pre-marital state as he has used her body to produce children and in other ways, too for the past three decades their marriage have subsisted.
Even in the far East African country of Uganda, the court had earlier adopted this reasoning in 2015 in the case of Mifumi (U) & 12 Ors v. Attorney General & Anor (2015) where the Supreme Court of Uganda held that the demand of refund of bride price after the breakdown of a customary marriage is unconstitutional, repugnant to natural justice equity and good conscience.
Therefore, by the implication of this recent judgment, a woman may no longer be expected to return the dowry or the bride price back to the man before their divorce can customarily be validated.
