JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.
The respondent was married to the daughter of the appellants under the customary law of the Frafras. He had one child by his wife but for some reason the marriage broke down. According to custom, therefore, the girl brought the matter to the notice of her parents and requested them to go through the formalities for the dissolution of the marriage. The parents contacted the parents of the husband on the matter asking them, as custom demanded, for the return of their “calabash." (This euphemism is the symbolic language for asking for the return of their daughter who in this graphic language is analogised to that common receptacle — the calabash.) According to Frafra custom, the return of the calabash constituted a dissolution of the marriage. The return of the calabash is a privilege of the husband, that is, the husband's family, never that of the wife's. If the request is met the marriage is brought to a peaceful end. But there are occasions when the husband may refuse to meet the demand for the return of the calabash. On such occasions, according to the custom, the wife, or in fact her family, may then unilaterally consider the marriage to have come to an end.
[p.418]
Matters in this instant case would seem not to have taken the smooth course. The request for the return of the calabash was not met. The first appellant deposed in his evidence that, “when we informed the plaintiff’s father, he told us that he would contact the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff’s father told us that the plaintiff did not accept the divorce.” This was the explanation he gave for the steps he took later by giving his daughter away in marriage to another man. This explanation meant that upon the refusal of the respondent to return the calabash the first appellant had considered the marriage between his daughter and the respondent to have been dissolved. He therefore considered himself free to give his daughter away once more.
This action was instituted by the respondent, the husband of the appellants’ daughter, against her parent claiming “N¢300.00 damages for giving his lawful wife in marriage to one Victor Shandow.”
The appellants pleaded liable with explanation. The explanation they gave is as follows:
“That there was a case which ended and later the girl in dispute called me and told me that she was no longer interested to marry the plaintiff. I accompanied the wife of the plaintiff to the plaintiff’s father to inform him that she was no
