DC859

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE 
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

VCApp. No. 478 of 2008

BETWEEN

Cecilia Umoli
(Appellant)

AND

Linson Hugure
(Respondent)

GOROKA: G VETUNAWA
2008: October 3, 29
November 24
December 22

Customary Law:-

Held – Bride price receivers predetermined by custom based on social relationship with the bride.
- Bride does not receive and is not a beneficiary of her own bride price
- Bride has no locus standi to be sued for the repayment of her own bride price.

Reference:
Section 3 Customs Recognition Act 1963
Section 86 (1) Village Courts Act 1989

Counsel:
Appellant: In Person
Respondent: In Person

JUDGEMENT

G Vetunawa Magistrate: This is an appeal against the decision of the Asaro Village Court in the Daulo District of Eastern Highlands Province. The appellant lodged the appeal under Section 86 (1) Village Courts Act, which reads as follows;

“Subject to Subsection (2), a person aggrieved by a decision of a Village Court may, within three months after the day on which the decision is pronounced, appeal orally or in writing to a magistrate.”

This Section 86 (1) Village Courts Act gives me the jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal and to make a decision under Section 92 (1) Village Courts Act, which reads as follows;

“A magistrate hearing an appeal against or making a review of a decision of a Village Court may –

(a) Confirm the decision or

(b) Quash the decision or 

(c) Order that the matter be dealt with again by the Village Court and if he thinks fit give with the order a direction as to how any defect in the earlier proceedings may be over come.”

The appellant sued the respondent in the Asaro Village Court, who was her husband, but were physically separated for some time. Appellant sued asking the Village Court to order the respondent to return their female child, namely Natasha to her custody.

Instead the Village Court made an order to dissolve the customary marriage and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent K700.00 as a repayment of her own bride price and K200.00 compensation to say good bye to the respondent. The appellant had no choice, but to accept the dissolution of their marriage because there was no more hope for the man to come back to her as he was with another woman. The appellant was not happy about her repaying her own bride price of K700.00.

Her grounds of appeal are as follows;

(1) After fourteen years of marriage the man deserted me and for me to repay the K700.00 plus one live pig and bride price is not fair.

(2) For me to pay K200.00 to farewell the man is not fair.

(3) I sued only for the custody of the child but the Village Court and the man diverted to the issue of dissolving our marriage and bride price repayment.

(4) The court was not fair.

With regard to ground one, the respondent is now married to a new wife and that was the reason why he wanted to dissolve the marriage with the appellant. Under customary law of the Asaro people the receivers of a woman’s bride price are predetermined by law according to their social relationship to the bride. This custom is common in many parts of Papua New Guinea including my own in (Bougainville).

The bride is not the person who receives her own bride price. She is not even allowed to consume her own bride price. Therefore it is not proper for the Village Court to order the bride to repay her own bride price. The right people to be sued are those who have received and consumed the bride price.

In the case of the appellant her parents and brothers are the one who received and consumed her bride price. Therefore, I hereby uphold ground one and the appellant shall not repay the K700.00 plus one live pig. 

For ground two, she should pay the K200.00 to farewell the man so that she can be fully free to go and get a new man without being harassed by the respondent as is always common up here in similar cases.

With regard to ground three, I would say the appellant did not intend in the first place to dissolve the marriage. It was the man’s intention for his own interest.

The appellant should not be penalized for the sake of the man’s selfish interest. As well as that the Village Court does not have powers to make orders about what was not pleaded in the summons. Remedy must be given in accordance with the pleadings.

On ground four, I would say on the whole the Village Court was bias and unfair towards the woman.

The recognition of custom as stated above is under section 3, Custom Recognition Act which says as follows:

3. (1) Subject to this Act, custom shall be recognized and enforced by, and maybe pleaded in, all Courts except so far as in a particular case or in a particular context -(as) its recognition or enforcement would result, in the opinion of the court, in in justice or would not be in the public interest.

The customs I have recognized and enforced in this appeal are as follows;

(a) Bride price receivers are predetermined based on their social relationship with the bride

(b) Bride does not receive her own bride price and is not a beneficiary of her own bride price

(c) Bride has no locus standi to be sued for the repayment of her own bride price

In accordance with the above reasons I make the following orders;

(1) The Village Court order number 2001 dated the 30th of June 2007 for Cecelia Umoli (appellant) to repay K700.00 plus one live pig which was her own bride price is hereby quashed.

(2) Appellant to pay only K200.00 to say farewell to the man.

____________________

Counsel:

Appellant: In Person
Respondent: In Person