Wedding gifts cannot be returned, court rules

He added that a gift means something given voluntarily.

The court’s decision followed a legal battle between St Peter’s Senior High School and former vice-principal Mr Dennis Odetta over a wedding gift (a car) the school gave to the latter and his wife on their wedding day.

School officials demanded the return of Mr. Odetta’s wedding gift, a Premio, after he submitted his resignation.

The school argued that the car was given to him in his official capacity to facilitate his work as deputy headteacher and not to keep him permanently.

But the judge disagreed with the school’s argument, saying the car was voluntarily given to the school’s vice-principal and his wife as a wedding gift and in front of a huge gathering.

“The plaintiff (Mr. Odette) was given the car keys during their wedding in front of the entire wedding audience, which included family and friends, as a gift, and this was accepted and appreciated by family and friends.

There is no indication that the said vehicle was given to the applicant (Mr. Odette) to facilitate his work as Deputy Director. The court had the opportunity to view video footage of what happened during the plaintiff’s wedding reception. That the car was gifted to the plaintiff is undoubtedly obvious,” he ruled.

He added: “The statement or evidence of the defendant (the school) is incredible and an afterthought to give the contrary view that it was intended to facilitate the plaintiff (Mr Odette) in his work. The plaintiff (Mr. Odette) should never have been assisted in driving at a private wedding. The defendant (the school) wanted to receive “credit and credit” for the kind gesture towards the plaintiff, which did happen, and it cannot claim to revoke the gift by denying that it was a gift.”

Further in his analysis, the judge compared the school’s behavior to “jilted lover syndrome,” in which a person seeks the return of all gifts received during a love relationship.

“The plaintiff (Mr. Odette) was asked to return the vehicle as he had resigned as deputy principal of the school. The demand for the vehicle was in response to his sudden resignation after refusing to grant the plaintiff leave. It would appear that the giving of the gift by the defendant was not necessarily a merely altruistic act,” Justice Ssekaana observed.

He added: “This may have been done in the hope that the plaintiff would reciprocate in a certain way by remaining an employee of the defendant for life. The plaintiff’s refusal to continue working resulted in a demand for the return of the gift. The court concluded that the car with registration number UAZ 207S was given to the plaintiff on his wedding day.”

Judge Shekaana ordered the Clerk of the Court to determine the market value of the car that the school had then gifted to the former deputy principal of the school in 2017 and hand it over to him.