1. Claim for inheritance share by a daughter of a slave concubine under Ibadhi law — validity of slave transfer under the Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree, 1890. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
1949 Supreme(SC) 21
Privy Council At Eastern Africa
Andsir John Beaumott, Sir Madhavan Nair, Lord Macdermott, Justice Lord Porter, JJ.
Fatma Binti Hafidh -Appellant
Versus
Administrator-General, Zanzibar Protectorate -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 81 of 1947
Decided On : 11-04-1949
Advocates Appeared:
Burchells, Charles Russell and Co., Dingle Foot, Frank Gahan
Burchells, Charles Russell and Co., Dingle Foot, Frank Gahan
A prohibition on the exchange, sale, or purchase of slaves includes gifts. If the transfer of a slave concubine is illegal, the legal status of the mother as the father's slave is not established, thereby preventing the child from being recognized as legitimate for inheritance purposes.
Headnote:(A) Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree of 1st August 1890 - Clauses 3, 4 and 5 - Legitimacy of offspring born to a slave concubine - Inheritance rights.
(B) Legitimacy by acknowledgment - Where the relationship of master and slave concubine is proved, a connection is established that leads to the inference that the child is legitimate if paternity is acknowledged (Para 9). In contrast, where no marriage exists and the concubine is not a slave, mere admission of paternity is insufficient; treatment must show the child is acknowledged as legitimate offspring (Para 10).
(C) Scope of prohibition on slave trade - A decree prohibiting all exchange, sale, or purchase of slaves applies to all transactions, including private gifts. Allowing gifts would defeat provisions requiring slaves to be freed upon the death of an owner if no lawful children exist (Paras 19-20).
(D) Status vs. Contract - The legitimacy of a child born to a slave concubine depends on the legal status of the mother as the slave of the father. If the transfer of the slave from a previous owner to the father was prohibited by law, the mother never legally became the slave of the father, and the child cannot be established as legitimate (Para 23).
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed a share of her father's estate as his daughter born to a slave concubine. It was found that the father's mother had given the appellant's mother to the father as a slave concubine and that the father had acknowledged the appellant as his daughter. The gift of the slave occurred after the promulgation of a decree prohibiting the slave trade but before a subsequent slavery decree.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the prohibition against the exchange, sale, or purchase of slaves included gifts. Because the transfer of the mother was illegal under the 1890 Decree, she never legally became the slave of the father.
Issues: Whether a private gift of a slave was prohibited under the Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree of 1890 and whether the illegality of such a gift precludes the child of the union from being recognized as legitimate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the 1890 Decree was a step toward the total abolition of slavery and its prohibition on "traffic" and "exchange" must be interpreted broadly to include gifts to prevent the evasion of laws requiring the manumission of slaves upon the owner's death. Since the mother's transfer was illegal, the essential legal requirement that the mother be the slave of the father was not met, regardless of the father's acknowledgment of paternity.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether acknowledgment of paternity suffices for legitimacy and whether the 1890 Decree prohibited private gifts of slaves or only commercial traffic. (Para 8 , 19 )
3. The 1890 Decree prohibited all slave transactions to prevent circumventing abolition; legitimacy in slave concubinage requires the mother to be the legal slave of the father. (Para 10 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 )
4. A gift of a slave prohibited by the Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree, 1890, prevents the transfer of ownership necessary to establish legitimacy via slave concubinage. (Para 19 , 20 , 23 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 25 )
6. Does the prohibition of slave traffic under the Slave Trade (Prohibition) Decree, 1890, extend to private gifts?
Yes, the Decree prohibits all transactions, including private gifts, as it was a step toward total abolition and to prevent owners from defeating the rule that slaves are freed upon the owner's death. (Para 19 , 20 )
7. Can a child claim legitimacy if the transfer of the mother as a slave concubine was illegal?
No, because legitimacy depends on the legal status of the mother as the father's slave. If the transfer was prohibited by law, the mother never legally became the father's slave, failing a necessary precedent for legitimacy. (Para 23 )
Lord Porter.-
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa dated 5th October 1946 which reversed the judgment of the High Court of Zanzibar given in favour of the appellant and dismissed her action with costs.
[2] The appellant claimed that she was the daughter of Hafidh bin Muhammad el-Busaidi (hereinafter called Hafidh) and of his slave concubine Panya and as such, under the law of the Ibadhi sect of which her parents were members, to be entitled to her share of her father's estate.
[3] Her mother was originally the slave of Hafidh's mother, Binti Juma, and was said to have been given by her as a slave concubine or "suria" to her son.
[4] It is common ground that in order to establish such a claim it must be proved, (1) that the mother was given to the father as a concubine and slave, (2) that by reason of the gift the woman given must have ceased to be the slave of the original owner and have become the slave of the man to whom she was given, (3) that she must have been accepted by him as such, (4) that the claimant was the daughter of this union, and (5) that the alleged father must have recognised her as his daughter.
5. The evidence was conflicting upon all these points, but certain facts were found by the learned Chief Justice of Zanzibar and were in substance accepted by the Appellate Court. In these circumstances their Lordships would naturally follow these findings both because they are concurrent and because they represent the view of the Court which saw and heard the witnesses.
[6] These facts are (1) that Binti Juma had given Panya as his slave concubine to Hafidh, (2) that he had accepted her in that capacity, and (3) that the appellant was the offspring of that union.
[7] The learned Chief Justice also found that by his conduct Hafidh had acknowledged the appellant as his daughter but this last finding is not a direct finding of fact but is derived partly from an inference drawn from the facts and partly from the law applicable to the circumstances.
[8] As to the law Mr. Gahan contended that the appellant would establish her case if an acknowledgment of paternity could legitimately be drawn either from an actual admission or from the facts proved in evidence; Mr. Dingle Foot for the respondent on the other hand maintained that a mere admission of paternity would not be enough, there must be something from which an acknowledgment of the appellant as one of those entitled to share in his estate could be inferred and in any case the acknowledgment must be clear and could not be derived from inconclusive circumstances. In regard to these contentions, their Lordships are not prepared to accept the view that anything more than an acknowledgment of paternity is required.
9. It is true that in cases where the question to be determined is whether there has been a marriage between the parents, something more than a mere acknowledgment of paternity is required. This principle is clearly stated in the head note to the judgment of the Board delivered by Lord Macnaghten in Abdool Razack v Aga Mahomed Jaffer Bindaneem, 21 IA 56 : (21 cal 666 PC) in the words :
"The Mahomedan doctrine of legitimacy by acknowledgment does not apply to every case of admission of paternity : an intention to confer the status of legitimacy must be found or presumed. "
But the reason for this doctrine, as has been pointed out in that case and in the other two cases cited to their Lordships, viz., Ashruffood Owlah Ahmed Hossien Khan v. Hyder Hossein Khan, 11 MIA 94 : (2 Sar. 223 PC) and Habibur Rahman Chowdhury v. Altaf Ali Chowdhury , 48 IA 114 : (AIR (9) 1922 PC 159) is to be found in the possibility under Moslem law of proving the existence of a valid marriage in cases where no ceremony has been performed but evidence is adduced from which it appears that the parties intended to be united in the marriage bond. The mere admission of paternity in no way establishes anything but a casual union and more is required to show the exi
