A CHISAMBA man’s ploy to earn some cash out of his sister’s failed marriage has hit a roadblock as the Matero declared that marriage is not a business transaction, dismissing his demand for outstanding bride price from his former brother-in-law.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16bg5u6a9v/?mibextid=oFDknk
The court’s decision, delivered by magistrate Harriet Mulenga, rejected attempts to profit from marital unions and emphasised individual consent over financial obligation.
The case centered on Royd Siakaloba, 54, who sued John Phiri, 52, for an unpaid balance of K8,200 from his young sister Atrina Muleya’s short-lived marriage.
Siakaloba accused Phiri of plowing and enjoying the sister’s ‘garden of fertility passage’ without full compensation during their one year and five months of marriage.
But Phiri, in his defense, claimed he was forced into signing the bride price agreement.
“They took a pen and placed it in my hand by force… I had no desire to marry Muleya. They simply forced me into it against my will,” he stated.
He further informed the court he had moved on and established a new family, with no intention of rekindling his relationship with Muleya.
However, Muleya, 36, was left in shock after the hubby’s revelation of rebuilding his family without her in the equation.
She revealed during cross-examination that she was unaware her marriage had ended and still considered Phiri her husband.
“My husband never informed me that our marriage was over,” she stated, expressing her desire for reconciliation.
However, magistrate Mulenga, in her decisive ruling, dismissed Siakaloba’s claim, asserting that the court would not compel anyone to enter or remain in a marriage against their will.
“If we force Phiri to pay the remaining bride price, who would benefit from the money because the marriage is effectively null and void and the bride price has become irrelevant?” magistrate Mulenga questioned.
“Marriage is a union in which the husband enjoys the companionship of his wife… But in this case, there is no longer a marriage to uphold.”
Directly addressing Siakaloba, magistrate Mulenga challenged his motives for suing his Mulamu.
“You would essentially be profiting from your sister’s relationships. The man who truly loves your sister should be the one to pay the dowry,” she said.
“Let’s not make marriage as capital, when [two people] don’t want each other, let them be, especially when a man is already married to another woman.”
She therefore dismissed the claim because the defendant had made it clear that he was no longer interested in the marriage,
“And the court will not compel him to stay in a marriage against his will. Marriage is not something to be forced upon anyone. We will not force him to pay a dowry he does not wish to pay,” stated magistrate Mulenga.
By Sharon Zulu
Kalemba June 25, 2025
