Mutare man loses application for lobola refund

Zim Now Writer

A Mutare man, Eddington Machingauta, who had taken his in-laws and estranged lover, to the Mutare Magistrates Civil Court, demanding restitution of US$4 240 which he paid as bride price has had his application dismissed.

Machingauta was also denied access to his bride.

His in-laws, Godwin Madenga and Betty Gombarume, as well as his lover, Patricia Chantelle Madenga were represented by Chris Ndlovu of Gonese and Ndlovu Legal Practitioners while Makuwaza and Magogo Attorneys stood for Machingauta.

Madenga refuted the claim that Machingauta paid US$4 240 as bride price,arguing that he had only paid US$500 towards lobola, with the other payments “not constituting lobola perse”.

Magistrate Priscilla Gumbo, who presided over the matter, dismissed Machingauta’s application arguing that his motives were not clear.

“It is still unclear why you decided to lie 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”.

The court ruled therefore that the two were only on separation.

The court heard that on August 9, 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.

He only managed to pay US$3 690 and groceries worth US$550, bringing the total to US$4 240.

The bride’s parents reportedly refused to hand over their daughter to Machingauta as they insisted that he needed to top up the money.

Machingauta and his lover’s relationship turned sour between August and October, prompting the woman to opt out of the marriage.

Machingauta maintains 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, Madenga said Machingauta refused to take his wife when he was called to do so.

The defendants’ attorney 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 added that Machingauta should go through proper channels to solve the matter.

The attorney, Ndlovu, also said 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.

Ndlovu also said Madenga cannot force his daughter to become Machingauta’s wife, adding that this was an issue that could only be solved by the two parties.