Masupha v Masupha (CIV/T 99) [2000] LSCA 131 (13 October 2000)

Masupha v Masupha (CIV/T 99) [2000] LSCA 131 (13 October 2000)

The defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving the existence of a valid customary marriage after making positive assertions in their pleadings. The plaintiff's evidence remained uncontradicted, and the court found that no valid marriage existed between 1st defendant's mother and Chief Mojela.

Citation
[2000] LSCA 131
Parties
Plaintiff: Molefi Libe Masupha; 1st Defendant: Maama Matela Masupha; 2nd Defendant: 'Malereko Mojela Masupha
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
13 October 2000
Case Number
CIV/T 99
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Validity of Customary Marriage, Onus of Proof, Chieftainship Succession
Source Language
English

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molefi Libe Masupha

Plaintiff

Maama Matela Masupha

1st Defendant

'Malereko Mojela Masupha

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Full Trial

  1. 1 Whether there was a valid customary marriage between 1st defendant's mother and Chief Mojela
  2. 2 Whether 'bohali' cattle were paid as required for a valid customary marriage
  3. 3 Who bears the onus of proof regarding the existence of a customary marriage

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving the existence of a valid customary marriage after making positive assertions in their pleadings. The plaintiff's evidence remained uncontradicted, and the court found that no valid marriage existed between 1st defendant's mother and Chief Mojela.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Declaratory order that there was never any valid marriage between 1st defendant's mother and Chief Mojela
  • Defendants to pay costs of suit