Mahanetsa v Mahanetsa and Others (CIV/APN 305 of 92) [1994] LSCA 113 (28 June 1994)

The applicant is declared the sole widow of the late Pali Paul Mahanetsa as her marriage was validly proved and no evidence was adduced to invalidate it or prove a subsisting prior marriage; thus, she is entitled to the deceased's terminal benefits and protection from interference by the first respondent.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1994] LSCA 113
Parties: Applicant: Malipolelo Lyllian Mahanetsa; 1st Respondent: Komello Mahanetsa; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General; 3rd Respondent: The Commissioner (R.L.D.F.)
Court: Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Lesotho
Case Number: CIV/APN 305 of 92
Procedural Posture: Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome: Application granted for the applicant on the balance of probabilities.
Legal Topics: Validity of Marriage, Widow Entitlement, Estate Administration, Polygamy/polyandry
Source Language: en

Family Law Succession Validity of Marriage Widow Entitlement Estate Administration Polygamy/polyandry

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Malipolelo Lyllian Mahanetsa

Applicant

Komello Mahanetsa

1st Respondent

Attorney General

2nd Respondent

The Commissioner (R.L.D.F.)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the applicant is the lawful widow of the late Pali Paul Mahanetsa
2 Whether the applicant is entitled to all terminal benefits of the deceased's estate
3 Whether the first respondent should be restrained from interfering with the estate

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted for the applicant on the balance of probabilities.

Orders

The applicant is declared the sole widow of the late Pali Paul Mahanetsa.
The third respondent is directed to pay all terminal benefits of the late Pali Paul Mahanetsa to the applicant.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

1 paragraphs

C I V / A P N / 3 0 5 / 92 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the m a t t er b e t w e e n: M A L I P O L E LO L Y L L I AN M A H A N E T SA A p p l i c a nt vs K O M E L LO M A H A N E T SA A T T O R N EY G E N E R AL T HE C O M M I S S I O N ER ( R . L . D . F .) 1st R e s p o n d e nt 2nd R e s p o n d e nt 3rd R e s p o n d e nt J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n o u r a b le Mr. J u s t i ce T. M o n a p a t hi on the 2 8 th day of J u ne 1 9 94 T he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt is the o n ly o ne w ho o p p o s es the p r a y e rs for d e c l a r i ng the A p p l i c a nt the s o le w i d ow of the late P a li Paul M a h a n e t s a, that all t e r m i n al b e n e f i ts of the e s t a te of the l a te P a li Paul M a h a n e t sa be paid to the A p p l i c a nt and d i r e c t i ng the F i r st R e s p o n d e nt to d e s i st f o r t h w i th from i n t e r f e r i ng in any way w i th the e s t a te of the l a te Pali Paul M a h a n e t s a. One c l e ar i n d i c a t i on of w h at w o u ld e x e r c i se the m i nd of the C o u rt is this s t a t e m e nt c o n t a i n ed in p a r a g r a ph four of the A p p l i c a n t 's R e p l y i ng A f f i d a v it w h i ch g o e s: -2- " It is s i g n i f i c a nt that the 1st R e s p o n d e nt does not want to a c k n o w l e d ge me e v en as he sees a copy of the o f f i c i al m a r r i a ge c e r t i f i c a t e. 1st R e s p o n d e nt has not o b t a i n ed the a f f i d a v it of the said M O T S E L I SI nor has he a n n e x ed any m a r r i a ge c e r t i f i c a te in s u p p o rt of his a l l e g a t i o ns w h i ch I s u b m it are false and 1st r e s p o n d e nt is put to the p r o of t h e r e o f ." (my u n d e r l i n i n g) It is i m p o r t a nt to n o te that in s u p p o rt of the e x i s t e n ce and the v a l i d i ty of the A p p l i c a n t 's m a r r i a ge to the late Pali Paul M a h a n e t sa the A p p l i c a nt has o b t a i n ed the a f f i d a v it of G. T s e e t sa who was p r e s e nt and a w i t n e ss to the said m a r r i a ge of the A p p l i c a nt and the d e c e a s e d. On the 6th June 1994 w h en the m a t t er w as p l a c ed b e f o re me Mr. M o l e te for the First R e s p o n d e nt i n d i c a t ed that p e r h a ps the m a t t er could not be dealt w i th on the p a p e rs w i t h o ut the aid of viva/a voce e v i d e n c e. Mr. M a t h a f e ng for the A p p l i c a nt a l so agreed with Mr. M o l e t e 'x o b s e r v a t i o n. No a s p e ct or i s s ue of the d i s p u te w as s p e l l ed out as r e q u i r i ng v e n t i l a t i on by way of viva v o ce e v i d e n c e. It w as on that n o te that the m a t t er w as p o s t p o n ed to the 8th J u n e, 1 9 9 4. On the 8th June 1994 C o u n s e ls a p p e a r ed as b e f o r e. The m a t t er could not p r o c e ed for the r e a s on of being c r o w d ed out by -3- o t h er m a t t e r s. H ut t h en it w as c l e ar t h at t he p a r t i es w e re not r e a dy to b r i ng in e v i d e n ce as a g r e ed p r e v i o u s l y. I t h e re a nd t h en i n d i c a t ed to t he C o u n s e ls t h at q u e s t i on of t he A p p l i c a n t 's m a r r i a ge to the d e c e a s ed P A LI P A UL M A H A N E T SA w as t he c e n t r al i s s ue to t he r e s o l u t i on of the d i s p u t e. It d id n ot m a t t er at t h at s t a g e, in my j u d g m e n t, w h at the p r o b a b i l i t i es w e re on the o t h er i s s u es but t he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt h ad to s a t i s fy me t h at the m a r r i a ge of t he A p p l i c a nt to t he d e c e a s ed by c i v il r i t es on 1 3 th S e p t e m b er 1 9 82 (as b o rn out by an a n n e x ed c o py of t he m a r r i a ge c e r t i f i c a t e) did n ot e x i st or w as a n u l l i t y. ( s ee s e c t i on 35 of M a r r i a ge A ct N o, 10 of 1 9 74 and the c o m m e n ts of t he l e a r n ed a u t h or D. Z e f f e rt in the 4 th e d i t i on of S o u th A f r i c an L aw of E v i d e n ce at p a ge 6 20 u n d er s e c t i on 2 (a) p r o of of m a r r i a ge g e n e r a l l y ), I a l so o r d e r ed t h at M r. M o l e te (if he so w i s h e d) s h o u ld f i le a d d i t i o n al a f f i d a v i ts on a ny q u e s t i o n, i n c l u d i ng t h e se o n es that c a me o ut in t he F i r st R e s p o n d e n t 's A f f i d a v i t. T he q u e s t i o ns w e re f i r s t l y, that the d e c e a s ed h ad b e en m a r r i ed to o ne M o t s e l i si M a h a n e t sa ( b o rn K o e s h e) and s e c o n d ly t h at " to t he b e st of my k n o w l e d ge and b e l i ef t he A p p l i c a nt is M a d a n i el S h a ta and d a u g h t e r - i n - l aw of D a n i el S h a ta of Q a c h a 's N ek w h om he k n ew p e r s o n a l l y ," as s t a t ed by the F i r st R e s p o n d e n t. T he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt is t he d e c e a s e d 's f a t h e r. It is i m p o r t a nt to n o te t h at at no t i me w as the e v i d e n ce of M o t s e l i si M a h a n e t sa ( t he a l l e g ed o t h er w i fe of t he d e c e a s e d) m a de -4- a v a i l a b l e. F u r t h e r m o r e, nothing was brought forward of the A p p l i c a n t 's r e l a t i o n s h ip with the Shata family except what was later revealed in an Order of Court to be referred to later in the j u d g m e n t. This is important because the s u g g e s t i on had been made of the p o s s i b i l i ty of the A p p l i c a nt being married to the Shata family and the M a h a n e t sa family probably at the same time. Equally important would have been an answer as to when was the A p p l i c a nt married to this member of the Shata family w h o se name had not been mentioned in the First R e s p o n d e n t 's a f f i d a v i t. If the A p p l i c a nt was indeed married to a member of the Shata family and if such m a r r i a ge proceeded this one to the deceased Paul Pali M a h a n e t sa it meant that the A p p l i c a nt has b e en engaged in p o l y a n d ry and that this m a r r i a ge to Pali Paul M a h a n e t sa would be null and void. (See section 2 9 ( 1) of M a r r i a ge Act N o, 10 of 1974 and learned author (section 29 (1) of M a r r i a ge Act No. 10 of 1974 and learned author (as he then w a s) W. C. M, Maqutu in c o n t e m p o r a ry Family law of Lesotho on pages 94-95 under 9.4 p o l y a n d r y) But then the Court Order in case number C I V / T / 2 0 6 / 80 e v e n t u a l ly answered most of the q u e s t i o n s. It was in the above c i r c u m s t a n c es that on the morning of the 27th June 1994 despite the p r o t e s t a t i on of Mr. M a t h a f e ng for the A p p l i c a n t, I again adjourned the matter to the a f t e r n o o n. I had h o p e d, in all f a i r n e s s, that there would be some e v i d e n ce in support of the other aspects or issues which would amount to a -5- d e f e n ce in favour of the First R e s p o n d e n t. It is s i g n i f i c a nt to note that at that j u n c t u re M r. M o l e te had a l r e a dy c o n c e d ed that he had failed to find anything that could i n v a l i d a te the A p p l i c a n t 's said civil m a r r i a g e. A n y t h i ng that came near to being a m a t t er of interest was an order of Court in case n u m b er C I V / T / 2 0 6 / 80 being in the m a t t er b e t w e en M o r o n g oe A l b e r t i na Shata (born M o h a p i) a g a i n st Victor Felleng S h a t a. The order was issued by the Chief J u s t i ce Mr. T. S. Cotran (as he then w a s) t h a t: " 1, An order c o n d o n i ng P l a i n t i f f 's a d u l t e r y, be and is hereby c o n d o n e d. 2. (a) That (a) and (b) is h e r e by g r a n t e d; (b) P l a i n t i ff is a w a r d ed c u s t o dy of the m i n or c h i l d r en of the m a r r i a g e; (c) D e f e n d a nt is ordered to m a i n t a in c h i l d r en of the m a r r i a ge at the rate of R 1 5 . 00 per child per m o n t h; (d) D e f e n d a nt f o r f e i ts all b e n e f i ts a r i s i ng out of the m a r r i a g e; (e) Costs of suit awarded to P l a i n t i f f ." -6- T h is O r d er of C o u rt w as e x h i b i t ed l a t er in the a f t e r n o o n. O ne of the p r a y e rs g r a n t ed had b e en for t he d i s s o l u t i on of the p a r t i e s' m a r r i a g e. It is c l e ar that t he o r d er w as m a de q u i te b e f o re the 1 3 th S e p t e m b er 1 9 8 2, w h en on the m e n t i o n ed d a te t he A p p l i c a nt and the l a te Paul P a li M a h a n e t sa c o n t r a c t ed t h e ir m a r r i a g e. T he d i s s o l v ed m a r r i a ge c o u ld n ot h a ve a ny e f f e ct on t he A p p l i c a n t 's m a r r i a ge w i th P a ul P a li M a h a n e t s a. T h is is e v en a s s u m i ng that the A p p l i c a nt is in fact M O R O N G OE A L B E R T I NA S H A T A. In the a b s e n ce of a ny e v i d e n ce to d i s p r o ve t he s a l i e nt f a c ts e n t i t l i ng the A p p l i c a nt to the r e l i ef s o u g h t, t he F i r st R e s p o n d e n t 's C o u n s el c o n c e d e d, m o st w i s e l y, that he c o u ld not c a r ry the m a t t er any f u r t h e r, I t h e r e f o re f o u nd for the A p p l i c a nt on the b a l a n ce of p r o b a b i l i t i e s, In t h is d e c i s i on I h a ve c o n s i d e r ed t h is a r r ay of u n c o n t r o v e r t ed f a c ts and all the c i r c u m s t a n c es of the c a s e, w h i ch s h ow in a w ay that l e a v es no d o u b t, that the d e c e a s ed w as A p p l i c a n t 's h u s b a nd by l a w, (see S e l a m o l e le vs M a k h a do 1 9 8 8 ( 2) SA 3 72 at 3 7 5 D - E) I m a de the o r d e rs t h a t: ( a) T he A p p l i c a nt is d e c l a r ed the s o le w i d ow of the l a te P a li P a ul M a h a n e t s a. ( b) T he T h i rd R e s p o n d e nt is d i r e c t ed to pay all the t e r m i n al b e n e f i ts of t he l a te P a ul P a li M a h a n e t sa to t he A p p l i c a n t, -7- ( c) T he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt is d i r e c t ed f o r t h w i th to d e s i st in a n y w ay f r om i n t e r f e r i ng w i th t he e s t a te of t he l a te P A LI P A UL M A H A N E T S A. ( d) E a ch p a r ty s h a ll p ay i ts o wn c o s t s. T. M O N A P A T HI JUDGE 28th June, 1994 For the Applicant : Mr. Mathafeng For the 1st Respondent : Mr. Molete

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.