Jilted Groom Sues Ex-Fiancée’s Father for Dowry Refund

Sharia Court

Jilted Groom Sues Ex-Fiancée’s Father for Dowry Refund

A businessman, Nasiru Dayyabu, has dragged the father of his ex-fiancée, Mallam Sani Direba, before a Shari’a Court II sitting at Magajin Gari, Kaduna, demanding the refund of N260,000 paid as dowry and introduction fees for a marriage that never materialized. The complainant joined Direba in the suit alongside two brothers, demanding a refund of N250,000 dowry and N10,000 introduction money (kudin gausuwa) paid to secure the defendant’s daughter’s hand in marriage. However, in a surprising turn of events inside the courtroom, the three defendants appeared with the full N260,000 and declared they were ready to present it to the court.

Represented by his counsel, Mr. Sani Sunusi, Dayyabu told the court that he sent his people from Karaye, Kano State, to Kaduna in 2025 to formally seek the defendant’s daughter’s hand in marriage. According to the complainant, the traditional processes were completed, including payment of the dowry and introduction money, and both families were awaiting a date for the wedding ceremony. “Unfortunately, the lady’s father called to inform us that they have cancelled the marriage,” the counsel told the court. The complainant said he had requested a refund of his money since September 2025, but all efforts to recover the funds proved abortive. He further claimed that his client had traveled from Kano to Kaduna three times to resolve the issue before eventually filing a suit and hiring a lawyer—a situation he said significantly affected Dayyabu’s finances.

Sunusi, therefore, prayed the court to compel the defendants not only to refund the N260,000 but also to pay an additional N250,000 as damages for wasting his client’s time and resources. On their part, the three defendants surprised the courtroom by stating that they had come prepared with the N260,000 dowry and introduction money and were ready to present it to the court immediately. However, regarding the additional claim of N250,000 as compensation for “wasted time,” the first defendant offered a contrasting narrative. He claimed that it was Dayyabu himself who called off the marriage, not the bride’s family. This dispute over who actually terminated the marriage agreement could prove crucial in determining whether the court awards the additional damages being sought by the complainant.

The presiding judge, Mallam Yakubu Abdullahi, asked the defendants if they had witnesses to support their claim that Dayyabu was responsible for calling off the marriage. The defendants confirmed that they did. Consequently, the judge adjourned the case to June 17, 2026, for the defendants to present their witnesses and substantiate their version of events.

READ ALSO:

This case highlights a recurring legal issue within Nigeria’s pluralistic legal system, where customary and Islamic laws govern marriage contracts alongside statutory law. Under Islamic law, which applies in Shari’a courts across northern Nigeria, a woman seeking divorce (khul’i) may return the dowry, but courts often allow flexibility based on economic hardship. In customary law contexts across Nigeria, the refund of bride price is widely recognized as a critical step in formally terminating a customary marriage. In the landmark case of Eze v. Omeke (1977) , the court described dissolution of a customary marriage without addressing bride price refund as “meaningless.” Similarly, in Ezeaku v. Okonkwo, the Court of Appeal adopted the principle that “the refund of the bride price is one of the important subjects to be settled” when a customary marriage ends. However, legal experts note that bride price refund is not automatic or absolute under all circumstances. Factors such as the duration of the marriage, the birth of children, and the wife’s contributions to the household may affect refund obligations.

This is not the first time a jilted groom has approached the same Shari’a Court in Magajin Gari seeking dowry refund. The court, presided over by Judge Yakubu Abdullahi, has handled several related cases in recent months. In October 2019, a 70-year-old man, Abdullahi Dahiru, prayed the court to recover N25,000 dowry he paid to his alleged former fiancée, Ms. Rakiya Ibrahim. In that case, the woman had given birth to twins, which the elderly groom rejected, claiming he had never been intimate with her. More recently, in April 2026, a Shari’a court sitting at Magajin Gari granted Ahmad Kazeem’s request for time to amicably resolve his matrimonial difference with his wife, Jamilat Abdullahi, who had filed for divorce and declared she was ready to refund the N10,000 dowry. In May 2026, another case before the same court saw Fatima Usman seek divorce from her husband, Sulaiman Adamu, after three months of marriage through Khul’i (redemption divorce) . Fatima offered to pay half of the N100,000 dowry—N50,000—to secure her freedom. Judge Yakubu Abdullahi ruled that their marriage had been dissolved and ordered her to pay back the dowry immediately, explaining that in Islam, a woman seeking divorce is allowed to return her dowry, which could be higher or less than the actual dowry paid to her.

In another notable case before the court, the judge ordered a woman, Hauwa’u, to return N100,000 dowry and an additional N20,000 given as “Kudin Gaisuwa” (money given to her parents during introduction) to redeem herself from her one-year marriage to businessman Malam Baballe Ibrahim. In a more extreme example, a Sharia Court in Magajin Gari ordered a divorce-seeking housewife, Binta Sani, to pay N20,000 to her estranged husband, Adamu Abdullahi, to free herself from their 19-year marriage. The judge noted that while the petitioner had the right in Islam to ask for a divorce, the court also has the right to add to the amount of the dowry to enable the husband to remarry.

As the June 17 hearing approaches, the key question remains: who actually called off the marriage? The defendants claim Dayyabu was the one who terminated the agreement, while the complainant insists the bride’s family canceled the wedding. The outcome of this factual dispute will likely determine whether Dayyabu receives only the N260,000 refund or also secures the additional N250,000 in damages. If the defendants’ witnesses can credibly establish that Dayyabu walked away from the marriage voluntarily, the court may limit its order to the refund of the dowry and introduction money—which the defendants have already indicated they are willing to pay. However, if the court finds that the bride’s family unjustly canceled the marriage without justification, the additional claim for damages may succeed. The case also underscores the importance of documentation in customary marriage negotiations, as written agreements or witnesses to the terms of the betrothal can prove decisive in disputes over who bears responsibility when a marriage agreement collapses.