Abubakar Ibrahim, 72-year-old man, of Kabala West, Kaduna, on Tuesday, dragged his future in-law to a Sharia Court ll, sitting at Magajin Gari, Kaduna, seeking refund of N95,000 in bride price.
According to News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Ibrahim told the court that he paid N95,000 to his prospective in-law, Muhammad Lawal, and two years later, no date has been fixed for the wedding.
“We are no longer interested in the marriage. I want the court to help me recover my money. He has been promising to pay back my money, but failed to do so.
“We entered into an agreement on April 17, which he signed, promising to pay back the money but he failed.
”He has two cars, he should sell one and pay me my money,” Ibrahim said.
The defendant, Lawal, a district head, who resides at 065 Warri Street, Kaduna, acknowledged that he owed the money paid as bride price for his daughter Ramatu.
Lawal, however, denied having any car or any movable asset which he can sell to repay the complaint.
After listening to the parties, the judge, Murtala Nasir adjourned the case until July 16 for ruling.
Nasir ordered the complainant to carry out further investigation into whether the defendant owns any movable property.
According to News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Ibrahim told the court that he paid N95,000 to his prospective in-law, Muhammad Lawal, and two years later, no date has been fixed for the wedding.
“We are no longer interested in the marriage. I want the court to help me recover my money. He has been promising to pay back my money, but failed to do so.
“We entered into an agreement on April 17, which he signed, promising to pay back the money but he failed.
”He has two cars, he should sell one and pay me my money,” Ibrahim said.
The defendant, Lawal, a district head, who resides at 065 Warri Street, Kaduna, acknowledged that he owed the money paid as bride price for his daughter Ramatu.
Lawal, however, denied having any car or any movable asset which he can sell to repay the complaint.
After listening to the parties, the judge, Murtala Nasir adjourned the case until July 16 for ruling.
Nasir ordered the complainant to carry out further investigation into whether the defendant owns any movable property.
In this article: