[Couple cohabited for 7 years and had 2 children
but no brideprice ever paid to the woman's family. Following the breakup, woman
sued for maintenance for the children in her custody and for ehrself. Man
argued that in the absence of brideprice, there was no marriage under customary
law. Court ruled that brideprice no longer an essential of marriage under
customary law. He was ordered to pay maintenance to the woman as well as to the
children.]
Distributable (91) Judgment No.
S.C. 158/87
Civil
Appeal No. 406/86
Davison Karambakuwa v. Margret Mabaya
Supreme Court of Zimbawe
Dumbutshena, CJ, McNally, JA & Manyarara,
JA,
Harare, December 3 & 29, 1987.
The appellant in person
The respondent in person.
MANYARARA,
JA: It is common cause that the parties to this matter cohabitated for seven
years but never took the trouble to have their union registered in terms of
Statute. There are three minor children of the union. The appellant has not
paid or promised to pay roora to the respondent's family.
It
appears that the union broke up after a quarrel whose details are not available
to this Court. By some arrangement made out of court, custody of the eldest
child of the union remained with the appellant and the respondent has custody
of the two younger children.
Following
the break-up of the union, the respondent obtained an order from the Community
Court for the maintenance of the children in her custody as well as herself by
the appellant. The amounts awarded were $50 per month for both children and $40
per month for the respondent. The appellant appealed to the District Court
against the award made in favour of the respondent only. The Senior Magistrate
who presided over the proceedings dismissed the appeal in the following manner: