Court Dismisses Man’s Lobola Refund Application
The Mutare Magistrates Civil Court has dismissed an application for a lobola refund by an aggrieved bridegroom.
The Manica Post reported that Eddington Machingauta had dragged his in-laws, Godwin Madenga and Betty Gombarume, as well as his estranged flame, Patricia Chantelle Madenga to the court, demanding restitution of US$4 240 which he claimed to have paid as bride price.
Machingauta was represented by Makuwaza & Magogo Attorneys, while the defendants were represented by Chris Ndlovu of Gonese and Ndlovu Legal Practitioners.
Madenga dismissed the claim that Machingauta paid US$4 240 as bride price saying he only paid US$500 towards lobola, with the other payments “not constituting lobola perse”.
Presiding magistrate, Priscilla Gumbo dismissed Machingauta’s application saying his motives were not clear. Ruled the magistrate:
It is still unclear why you decided to lay dormant after paying lobola and only decided to resurface demanding a refund of the lobola.
This raises questions on whether the applicant wanted his wife or if it was all a sham.
My belief is the applicant would have taken the necessary actions to have his wife back if he truly wanted the marriage to subsist.
Gumbo ruled that Machingauta is not entitled to a refund since the marriage was never dissolved as he did not offer his wife a divorce token “gupuro”.
Allegations were that on 09 August, Machingauta visited his in-laws at their Pegasus house in Dangamvura in the company of his family to set a date for lobola payment and was given a bride price list with a total of US$11 240.
Machingauta only managed to pay US$3 690 and groceries worth US$550, making it a total of US$4 240.
After receiving the lobola, the bride’s parents refused to hand over their daughter to Machingauta as they insisted that he needed to top up the money.
Between August and October, Machingauta and Patricia’s relationship turned sour, prompting the woman to change her mind and opt out of the marriage.
Machingauta said that he tried to negotiate with his in-laws so that they could either restitute his money and groceries or give him his wife, all to no avail.
However, the father-in-law said Machingauta was called to come and take his wife, but he refused to do so.
The defendants’ attorney, Ndlovu, argued that lobola is a customary law practice and tradition, but the complainant had sued his clients under general law and not under customary law.
He said Machingauta should go through proper channels to solve the matter.
The lawyer further argued that lobola is a transaction between a son-in-law and his father-in-law, hence Machingauta cannot sue his mother-in-law and his estranged wife.
More: Pindula News
