Ex Officio Agent for the Public Trustee as Administrator of the Estate of Sadati Bin Sanawiya, deceased v Terro (C.A. 17/1930 (Msa.);) [1930] EACA 129 (1 January 1930)

## APPELLATE CIVIL.

## Before THOMAS, J.

EX-OFFICIO AGENT for the Public Trustee as Administrator of the Estate of SADATI BIN SANAWIYA, deceased

## (Appellant) (Original Defendant) n.

## SHAHASI BINTI SHEIKH TERRO (Respondent) (Original Plaintiff) C. A. $17/1930$ (Msa.).

The Courts Ordinance (Cap. 5), section 20-civil jurisdiction of Court of Cadi.

Mohammedan law-trial of two issues, viz. marriage and dowry, in one trial. Marriage certificate.

Held: That a Cadi has jurisdiction to deal with the question of dowry;

That two issues, viz. marriage and dowry, can be tried together;<br>That the production of a marriage certificate is not necessary in order to prove a marriage according to Mohammedan law.

Parties absent.

JUDGMENT.-This suit was brought by Shahasi Binti Sheikh Terro, claiming against the ex-officio agent for the Public Trustee as administrator of the estate of the deceased Sadati Bin Sanawiya, a declaration that she was the lawful wife of Sadati Bin Sanawiya, and that therefore she was entitled to receive her dowry and also her share of inheritance in the estate.

The case was heard by the Kathi of Lamu who found in favour of the plaintiff.

The ex-officio agent appeals from that decision. According to local practice neither party appeared nor was represented when the case was called on.

I have had the assistance of the Chief Kathi in considering. this appeal.

This first ground of appeal is that the Kathi tried two issues in one case, viz. marriage and dowry. The Chief Kathi informs me that there is no objection in Mohammedan law to this being According to the Courts Ordinance, Chapter 5, section 20, done. the Cadis Courts are stated to have full jurisdiction over Mohammedan natives in all matters relating to personal status, marriage, inheritance and divorce.

Now dowry is one of the essentials in a contract of marriage under Mohammedan law, and since the Cadi has full jurisdiction in all matters relating to marriage he has also in my opinion the jurisdiction to deal with the question of dowry.

The decision given in the case of Gulam Mohamed v. Hadayat Bibi, E. A. L. R., Vol. 9, page 76, is intended to refer only to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Mohammedan Divorce and Succession Ordinance, Chapter 171, and is not intended to limit the jurisdiction of the Cadis' Courts on the question of dowry.

A further ground of appeal is that the Kathi did not press for the marriage certificate to be produced. The production is not necessary according to Mohammedan law. And the Mohammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Ordinance, Chapter 172, whilst requiring the registration (section 9) provides by section $\mathbf{v}$ 24 (1) that nothing contained in the Ordinance shall be construed to render invalid by reason of its not having been registered any Mohammedan marriage or divorce which would otherwise be valid.

The witnesses called for the plaintiff satisfied the Kathi that the marriage took place and I see no reason to differ from that decision. He has also accepted the evidence given for the plaintiff as to the amount of the dowry and that it remained unpaid. He has also found that the plaintiff is entitled to inherit. $\mathbf{I}$ see no reason to differ with these findings.

The appeal must be dismissed with costs.