Kobeli v Director of Elections and Others (CIV/APN 272 of 98) [1998] LSCA 113 (17 December 1998)

C I V / A P N / 2 7 2 / 98 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the matter b e t w e en M A P H A T HE K O B E LI P E T I T I O N ER and D I R E C T OR OF E L E C T I O NS 1 ST R E S P O N D E NT I N D E P E N D E NT E L E C T O R AL C O M M I S S I ON 2 ND R E S P O N D E NT T HE A T T O R N E Y - G E N E R AL M O T L O HI M O E NO 3 RD R E S P O N D E NT 4 TH R E S P O N D E NT H e ld at M a s e ru C o r a m: L e h o h la J M o f o lo J R a m o d i b e di J J U D G M E NT R a m o d i b e di J In this m a t t e r, c o u n s el i n f o r ms t he C o u rt that t he P e t i t i o n er K o b e li failed to p ay s e c u r i ty f or c o s ts as o r d e r ed by this C o u r t. In t e r ms of S e c t i on 1 06 s u b s e c t i on 3 of t he N a t i o n al A s s e m b ly E l e c t i on O r d er 1 9 9 2, t he election petition of K o b e li is t a k en to h a ve b e en w i t h d r a w n, a c c o r d i n g ly t he C o u rt m a k es t he f o l l o w i ng c o n s e q u e n t i al o r d e r. M o t l o hi M o e no is h e r e by d e c l a r ed as h a v i ng b e en validly elected as a m e m b er of t he N a t i o n al A s s e m b ly for the C o n s t i t u e n cy of T h a b a - B o s iu N o. 3 7. T h e re shall be no o r d er as to costs. J U D GE OF T HE H I GH C O U RT I agree: I agree: M . L . L e h o h la J U D GE OF THE H I GH C O U RT G . N. M o f o lo J U D GE OF T HE H I GH C O U RT Delivered on the 17th d ay of D e c e m b er 1 9 9 8. For the Petitioner For the R e s p o n d e nt : : M r. M o s i to M r. M a t s au -1- CIV/APN/82/98 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the matter between: M O T S O MI M O T S O MI and T S E PA N K U A T S A NA ' M A M O T S O MI M O T S O MI N A T H AN N K U A T S A NA N K H O L I SE L E S H O TA A T T O R N EY G E N E R AL R E G I S T R AR G E N E R AL 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th A P P L I C A NT R E S P O N D E NT R E S P O N D E NT R E S P O N D E NT R E S P O N D E NT R E S P O N D E NT R E S P O N D E NT R E A S O NS F OR J U D G M E NT For Applicant : M rs Majeng M p o po F or R e s p o n d e n ts : M r. N a t h a ne D e l i v e r ed by t he H o n o u r a b le M r. Justice T. M o n a p a t hi on t he 1 8 th d ay of D e c e m b er 1 9 98 On the 6th M a r ch 1 9 98 the Applicant a p p r o a c h ed this C o u rt by w ay of an urgent application. H is prayers included, inter alia, the following: -2- (a) " D i s p e n s a t i on of the rules as to p e r i o ds of service a nd t i m es of a p p e a r a n c es a nd granting of a rule nisi. ( b) An o r d er that the F o u r th R e s p o n d e nt s h o u ld dispatch a m a r r i a ge certificate N o. 2 9 / 97 b e t w e en the First a nd S e c o nd R e s p o n d e n ts to A p p l i c a nt to be exhibited before C o u rt - v i de 2 ( a) of notice of m o t i o n. (c) T h at the m a r r i a ge entered to b e t w e en First a nd S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt s h o wn in the certificate N o. 2 9 / 97 be d e c l a r ed null a nd v o id - v i de 2 ( b) of notice of m o t i o n. ( d) T h at the First a nd T h i rd R e s p o n d e nt be o r d e r ed to return the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt to h er m a i d en h o me - v i de 2 ( c) of the notice of m o t i o n. T he c r a v ed for rule nisi w as g r a n t ed in w h i ch the first p r a y er a nd p r a y er 2 ( a) o p e r a t ed w i th i m m e d i a te effect a nd all parties w e re s e r v ed w i th the c o p i es of the interim O r d e r. T he other p r a y e rs especially p r a y er 2 ( b) in the notice of m o t i on w e re b a s ed on the p r e m i s es that the m a r r i a ge c o u ld n ot constitute a valid civil m a r r i a g e, w h e re it l a c k ed parental c o n s e nt a n d, w h e re S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt h ad b e en u n d er the a ge of t w e n ty o ne ( 2 1) at the t i me of the contracting of the m a r r i a ge a nd h ad therefore n ot attained majority w h en the m a r r i a ge w as e n t e r ed into. On the 21st A u g u st 1 9 98 w h en the m a t t er first a p p e a r ed b e f o re me M r. N a t h a ne h ad filed a notice in t e r ms of rule 10 (c). T h is m e a nt that he h ad raised certain points of l a w. He said he h ad n ot b e en able to get h o ld of his client to consult fully a nd settle an a n s w e r i ng affidavit. I n o t ed the fact that there h ad b e en d e l ay in settling of the affidavit in a n s w er a nd in fact there h ad b e en no a n s w e r i ng -3- a f f d a v it at all. M rs M a j e ng - M p o po for the A p p l i c a nt m o v ed that there s h o u ld be an o r d er for the A p p l i c a nt alternatively there be a r g u m e nt on the points raised by M r. N a t h a n e. I h o w e v er r e f u s ed to give a ny o r d er for the A p p l i c a n t. I set aside a nd i g n o r ed the points raised by M r. N a t h a ne b e c a u se t h ey w e re plainly c u r s o ry technicalities in this serious m a t t er w h i ch i n v o l v ed status. I said to C o u n s el it w o u ld be interesting to receive s u b m i s s i o ns a b o ut certain i m p o r t a nt issues. Firstly, w h e t h er the m a r r i a ge w as void ab initio or m e r e ly v o i d a b l e. S e c o n d l y, w h at effect the attitude of the First R e s p o n d e nt w o u ld h a ve n ow that s he w as p r e p a r ed to a c c e pt the m a r r i ed state, w h i ch latter a s p e ct t he C o u rt o u g ht on r e a s o n a b le g r o u n ds to investigate. Thirdly, w h at w o u ld be the situation as to t he l o c us standi of the A p p l i c a nt if the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt a c c e p t ed the m a r r i a ge state. Fourthly, w h at the situation w o u ld be if there w o u ld be no a p p e a r a n ce by the First a nd S e c o nd R e s p o n d e n t s. By a p p e a r a n ce I m e a nt r e s p o n se to by w ay of factual s t a t e m e n ts in o p p o s i t i on or s o me indication of attitude a g a i n st the granting of the application. 1 ruled that despite the a b s e n ce of o p p o s i ng facts there w as still n e ed to investigate the m a t t e rs I h ad raised. In o r d er to do so there m u st be an a t t e m pt firstly, to file a n s w e r i ng affidavits if possible or alternatively for the parties to a p p e ar in C o u rt t h e m s e l v e s. I e n d ed up m a k i ng the f o l l o w i ng orders: 1. T h at the District Secretary p r o d u ce a duplicate of the said m a r r i a ge certificate b e t w e en the First a nd the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt a nd transmit s a me to the Sixth R e s p o n d e nt in o r d er for h er to issue a certified c o py of t he m a r r i a ge certificate. -4- 2. T h at the First a nd S e c o nd R e s p o n d e n ts should file a n s w e r i ng affidavits before the 8th O c t o b er 1 9 98 a nd should a p p e ar in C o u rt on the 8th O c t o b er 1 9 9 8. T he Applicant w as also ordered to appear. I m a de the last order in the event that I w o u ld later require the Applicant's response. T he matter w as then p o s t p o n ed to the 8th O c t o b er 1 9 98 for hearing. I a w a r d ed the costs of the p o s t p o n e m e nt to the Applicant. On the 28th O c t o b er 1 9 98 w h en this C o u rt sat again a nd following my ruling of the 21st A u g u st 1 9 98 prayer in 2(c) of the notice of m o t i on h ad b e en c o m p l i ed with expeditiously by courtesy of personal intervention of the Fourth a nd the Sixth R e s p o n d e n t s. T he required d o c u m e n ts a nd copies h ad accordingly b e en put into possession of the Assistant Registrar a nd Attorneys for the Applicant. T h e se w e re a m o ng those later exhibited in the next sitting of this C o u rt w h i ch w e re the d o c u m e n ts s h o wn b e l o w. "Exhibit A" w as a declaration by the First R e s p o n d e nt that there w e re no existing legal i m p e d i m e n ts to his being joined in w e d l o ck w i th the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e n t. This declaration w as m a de on the 3rd S e p t e m b er 1 9 9 7. It m u st be s u ch declaration that g a ve rise to the marriage c e r e m o n y. "Exhibit B" w as a declaration similar to "Exhibit A" in w h i ch the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt declared that there w e re no i m p e d i m e n ts to marriage. T h at she w as a spinster a nd s he w as a b o ve the a ge of twenty o ne years. T h at she w as a b o ve the a ge of t w e n ty o ne w as stated in terms of paragraph I thereof. Incidentally this declaration t o ok the f o rm an affidavit a nd it is in fact w h at it w as b e c a u se it w as clear that there h as b e en s o me s w e a r i ng on d o ne by s o me officer of the District Secretary's office. -5- T he n e xt exhibit w as Exhibit " C ", b e i ng a c o py of the m a r r i a ge certificate in w h i ch the b r i d e g r o om (the First R e s p o n d e n t) d e c l a r ed that his a ge w as t w e n ty five(25) y e a rs a nd there w as the bride (the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e n t) w ho declared as r e c o r d e d; that h er a ge w as t w e n ty t wo ( 2 2) y e a rs a nd d e c l a r ed herself a scholar. T h is w as a m a r r i a ge certificate that w as m a de p u r s u a nt to my p r e v i o us order to the District Secretary of M o k h o t l o n g. T he fourth exhibit w as "Exhibit D" w h i ch w as a photostat c o py of the first p a ge of the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e n t 's local passport N o. N 1 5 8 6 34 in w h i ch the date of birth of the bearer is s h o wn as the 13th F e b r u a ry 1 9 7 6. This w as a c o py w h i ch w as m a de to the District Secretary to v o u ch for the alleged correct date of birth of the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e n t. T h e re w as a strange thickness f r om the t op of the figure " 6" w h i ch w as unusually vertical f r om the t op to the b a s e. T he p en stroke w as clearly m u ch thicker t h an in other figures. It w o u ld o b v i o u s ly give rise to a d o u bt that the figure h ad b e en t a m p e r ed with. On the 28th O c t o b er of this y e ar the First a nd S e c o nd R e s p o n d e n ts h ad still failed to file a ny a n s w e r i ng affidavits contrary to the o r d er I m a de of the 21st A u g u st 1 9 9 8. H o w e v er t h ey did, together with the A p p l i c a n t, a p p e ar b e f o re m e. T he t wo R e s p o n d e n ts w e re r e a dy to give a viva voce e v i d e n ce in v i ew of their failure to file the said affidavits. T he Applicant's C o u n s el indicated that the A p p l i c a nt w o u ld also be r e a dy if required. I h ad previously referred C o u n s el to the C o u rt of A p p e al c a se of M A S U P HA v ' M O TA L AC 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 8 9, 58 in w h i ch the attitude of the bride w ho w as alleged to h a ve b e en m a r r i ed w h i le u n d er a ge w as t h o u g ht by that C o u rt to h a ve b e en significant b e c a u se at the t i me of the hearing of that application for a n n u l m e nt s he -6- h ad already r e a c h ed majority. T he a b s e n ce of the bride's attitude a nd the fact that she w as not cited in that case w as held to be vital to the application. M o st particularly the decisive point in the case s e e m ed to revolve a r o u nd issue of joinder. B ut I thought the case w as m o re insightful m another important respect w h i ch w as s h o wn by M r. N a t h a ne for the R e s p o n d e n t s, w h i ch w as c o n f i r m ed later as s h o wn in the quotation f r om p a g es 2 1 9 - 2 20 of C O N T E M P O R A RY F A M I LY L AW OF L E S O T HO by W CM M a q u tu (as he then w a s ). T he question of the bride's attitude to the proceedings led me to find out f r om her a nd the b r i d e g r o om w h e t h er their w i sh w as to h a ve the m a r r i a ge maintained: This investigation I m a de with consent f r om C o u n s el f r om the t wo parties w ho w e re before Court. T he finding out of the questioning w as not m a de u n d er oath a nd C o u n s el did not object to that line of action. T he said bride a nd b r i d e g r o om said they h ad indicated that their w i sh w as that the marriage state be sustained a nd the marriage w as to persist b e c a u se they still loved e a ch other very m u c h. In v i ew of the declaration by the bride a nd b r i d e g r o om as to their marriage the question that remained w as the question w h e t h er the marriage w as void or voidable in the event that the bride h ad b e en m a r r i ed w h i le u n d er age. S e c o n d ly if it w as either void or voidable w h at in l aw w h at w o u ld be a correct conclusion h a v i ng regard to the fact that the parties w i s h ed the marriage to persist despite that the bride m ay h a ve by mistake or intentionally misrepresented her a ge to the Fourth R e s p o n d e n t. If the marriage w as m e r e ly voidable w h at w as the effect of the deliberate misrepresentation by the bride as to her correct a g e? W as there a n e ed for viva v o ce evidence if despite the lie the marriage could not be dissolved? If the marriage w as voidable could it be ratified by operation of the l aw as after the bride h ad achieved majority? If the marriage w as void ab initio a nd if there w as that error -7- as to the date of birth w h at t h en w o u ld be the status of the m a r r i a g e? C o u n s el w e re invited to a d d r e ss the C o u rt on the m e n t i o n ed issues in future a nd still d e c i de if n e ed be on a ny a s p e ct n e c e s s a ry to r e a ch a conclusion w h e t h er there w as still a n e ed to lead viva v o ce e v i d e n c e. All these s e e m ed to h i n ge on the discretion of the C o u rt b a s ed on the c o n t i n u ed cohabitation of the parties ( p r e s u m a b ly as m an a nd w i f e ), their attitude a nd the question of estoppel. C o u n s el w o u ld a d d r e ss this on a d a te to be a p p o i n t ed by C o u rt w h i ch w as the 17th N o v e m b er 1 9 9 8. On the date of hearing C o u n s el h ad d u ly p r e p a r ed their h e a ds of a r g u m e n t. T h ey w e re to a r g ue on the restricted c o m p a ss of the points that I h a ve just raised w h i ch f l o w ed f r om the question of v o i d n e ss a nd validity of the m a r r i a g e. T h at w as in the p r e m i s es that the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt c o u ld h a ve told a lie w h i ch give rise to the m a r r i a ge officer c o n c l u d i ng that it w as safe to m a r ry the parties b e c a u se there w as no r e q u i r e m e nt for parental consent b e c a u se the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt w as a b o ve the a ge of t w e n ty o n e. I a s k ed C o u n s el if it w as safe to p r o c e ed on this p r e m i s e. T h ey a g r e ed that that w o u ld be a shortening of p r o c e e d i n gs b ut if d u r i ng a r g u m e nt there w o u ld be n e ed to lead viva v o ce e v i d e n ce on a ny a s p e ct that w o u ld arise a nd the C o u rt w o u ld be requested accordingly. W h at w as i m p o r t a nt therefore w as that we h ad the f o u n d i ng affidavit of the Applicant w h i ch c o n t a i n ed a g o od deal of factual b a c k g r o u nd w h i ch w as n e c e s s a ry to r e c o rd in the j u d g m e nt b e f o re finally resolving the all i m p o r t a nt questions of l a w. T he A p p l i c a nt w as an adult M o s o t ho m a le of Pitseng Ha M o t s o mi in the district of T h a ba T s e k a. He currently resided at L i n a k e ng ha M p h o si in the s a me district w h e re he w as e m p l o y ed as teacher at L i n a k e ng P r i m a ry S c h o o l. T he First R e s p o n d e nt w as a M o s o t ho m a le adult of Litsoetse in t he district of M o k h o t l o n g, he w as a m e m b er of a L e s o t ho M o u n t ed Police w ho w as stationed at M o k h o t l o n g. T he -8- S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt w as the Applicant's d a u g h t er w h o se w h e r e a b o u ts w e re presently u n k n o wn as the A p p l i c a nt stated. T he T h i rd R e s p o n d e nt w as a m a le M o s o t ho adult of Litsoetse w ho resided in the s a me place in M o k h o t l o ng district. He w as the father of the First R e s p o n d e n t. T he F o u r th R e s p o n d e nt w as a M o s o t ho m a le adult a nd a District Secretary for the district of M o k h o t l o n g. He w as s u ed in his capacity as the m a r r i a ge officer in that district. T he Fifth R e s p o n d e nt w as the A t t o r n ey G e n e r al w ho w as b e i ng s u ed in his capacity as the representative of L e s o t ho G o v e r n m e nt in all civil p r o c e e d i n g s. T he A p p l i c a nt stated that he h ad a d a u g h t er of t w e n ty y e a rs of a ge a nd he m e n t i o n ed h er n a me as the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt in this matter. He said the girl w as b om on the 13th F e b r u a ry 1 9 7 7. T h is w as the date reflected in the birth certificate w h i ch w as attached to the p r o c e e d i n gs a nd w as m a r k ed " A n n e x u re A ". Prior to the events of the 25th A u g u st 1 9 97 the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt w as a student at St. J a m es H i gh S c h o ol in M o k h o t l o ng district. On the 25th A u g u st 1 9 97 w h i le the A p p l i c a nt w as at his w o rk at the school he received a m e s s a ge f r om o ne M a m p ho M a k e k a, a clinician at L i n a k e ng H e a l th C e n t r e. T he lady told h im that s he h ad b e en instructed to give the A p p l i c a nt a m e s s a ge that the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt h ad b e en a b d u c t ed by the First R e s p o n d e n t. S he further told the A p p l i c a nt that for further information the A p p l i c a nt m u st contact the T h i rd R e s p o n d e nt w ho resides at Litsoetse in the district of M o k h o t l o n g. On the following d ay the A p p l i c a nt w e nt to the place of the T h i rd R e s p o n d e nt w h e re he f o u nd the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt present. T he T h i rd R e s p o n d e nt told h im that the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt h ad b e en a b d u c t ed by his s o n, the First R e s p o n d e n t. He w as therefore r e a dy to m a ke m a r r i a ge settlement w i th the Applicant. T he A p p l i c a nt said he p l e a d ed w i th h im that he m u st give b a ck the girl to h im as he did not appreciate -9- the marriage on t wo grounds. T he first w as that his daughter w as still y o u ng a nd a student. S e c o n d l y, that the girl w as already e n g a g ed to o ne Phethahatso Leotla of M o k h o t l o n g. T he Third R e s p o n d e nt did not object to this request a nd he a l l o w ed the Applicant to take the girl b a ck to the Applicant's h o m e. W h en he arrived at h o me the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt told the Applicant that she w as forced to alight to the vehicle by the First R e s p o n d e nt while at the p r e m i s es of St. J a m es H i gh S c h o o l. This p r e s u m a b ly is the school at w h i ch she h ad attended. T he First R e s p o n d e nt led her to w h i ch place s o m e w h e re in M o k h o t l o ng t o w n s h ip w h e re he r a p ed her. H a v i ng h e a rd that the girl w as r a p ed the Applicant said he ordered her m o t h er to take her to P a r ay Hospital for consultation a nd the T h a ba T s e ka police as well. H is wife told h im that this w as d o n e. C o n s e q u e n t ly w h i le the t wo w e re f r om their journey they w e re attacked by three m en the m en pointed a g un at the Applicant's wife. T h ey a i m ed but missed. W h en the Applicant's wife collapsed they t o ok the girl a w ay a nd Applicant's wife i n f o r m ed Applicant that he identified o ne assailant as the First R e s p o n d e n t. After the incident Applicant o n ce m o re reported this to T h a ba T s e ka police. Despite e n d e a v o u rs the girl could not be found. After s o m e t i me the T h a ba T s e ka police referred Applicant's wife to M a b o te police in M a s e r u. T he police i n f o r m ed that they h ad heard a r u m o ur that the girl w as at the place of o ne T h a bo N k u a t s a na in M a s e r u. W i t h o ut a ny delay Applicant's wife rushed to M a s e ru to that T h a bo N k u a t s a n a 's place. Still the girl could not be found. S he a p p r o a c h ed the C o m m i s s i o n er of Police he informed Applicant's wife that the girl w as in M o k h o t l o ng at the First R e s p o n d e n t 's place a nd he w e nt further to say that he h ad ordered police in that district to s e nd both the First a nd S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt to M a s e ru for discussion on the issue pertaining to their marriage. B e f o re this the -10- officer h ad told the A p p l i c a nt that the t wo R e s p o n d e n ts h ad already b e en m a r r i ed by civil rites to e a ch other on the 3rd S e p t e m b er 1 9 97 a nd that h ad b e en d o ne b e f o re the District Secretary of M o k h o t l o n g. T he A p p l i c a nt w as i n f o r m ed by his w i fe of the a t t e n d a n ce of the First a nd the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt before the C o m m i s s i o n er of Police. T he C o m m i s s i o n er h ad a s k ed the t wo h ow they got married. T he S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt indicated that the First R e s p o n d e nt o r d e r ed h er to erase h er date of birth as reflected in the passport b e c a u se it w as discovered that s he w as u n d er a g e. T h is he a s k ed to be d o ne b e c a u se the m a r r i a ge officer w o u ld n ot go a h e ad w i th the m a r r i a ge w i t h o ut an indication of parents' prior c o n s e n t. S he therefore erased 1 9 77 for 1 9 7 6. T he C o m m i s s i o n er of Police c o n d e m n ed the t wo for that w r o n g f ul act a nd he r e q u e s t ed S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt to return to h er h o me w i th h er m o t h e r. On the 16th S e p t e m b er 1 9 97 the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt d i s a p p e a r ed f r om her m a i d en h o m e. T he A p p l i c a nt again h e a rd f r om the First R e s p o n d e nt that the girl h ad c o me to his h o me on h er o w n. A p p l i c a nt w e nt to the First R e s p o n d e n t 's father's place. He f o u nd the girl (his d a u g h t e r) present. T he A p p l i c a nt said he o n ce m o re requested the T h i rd R e s p o n d e nt to give h im b a ck his child. He w as told that the girl w o u ld be sent b a ck on the 24th S e p t e m b er 1 9 9 7. It w as c o m m on c a u se that the girl n e v er w e nt b a c k. T he girl a nd the First R e s p o n d e nt h as since b e en staying together as m an a nd wife. It w as after all these events that the A p p l i c a nt t h en a p p r o a c h ed his attorneys of record for advice. He said he w as a d v i s ed a nd verily believed s a me to be true a nd correct that the m a r r i a ge entered into b e t w e en the First a nd S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt w as null a nd void for w a nt of parental consent. T h is w as so b e c a u se by the t i me the -11- m a r r i a ge w as entered into the girl h ad not attained majority. T he girl w as u n d er t w e n ty o ne years t h en a nd this w as e v i d e n c ed by " A n n e x u re A" w h i ch is a birth certificate d a t ed the 4th M ay 1 9 77 w h i ch clearly s h o ws that the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt w as b om on the 13th F e b r u a ry 1 9 7 7. It therefore m e a nt that on the date of the m a r r i a ge that is the 3rd S e p t e m b er 1 9 97 the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt w as short by five m o n t hs before b e c o m i ng t w e n ty o ne years of a g e. T he Applicant finally stated that he could not live c o m f o r t a b ly w i th his w i fe w h en he c o n t i n u ed to entertain the belief that his child w as b e i ng a b u s ed by b e i ng in u n l a w f ul cohabitation w i th the First R e s p o n d e n t. T he learned author of C O N T E M P O R A RY F A M I LY L AW IN L E S O T HO (supra) m a de a distinction b e t w e en nullity of m a r r i a g es (at p a r a g r a ph 1 5 . 1 2) a nd voidable m a r r i a g es a nd m a de w h at I h a ve r e g a r d ed as a salutary g u i de to the p r o b l em at h a n d. T he factors that I h a ve considered to be vital w e re the question of capacity of the A p p l i c a nt to m a ke this application of a stage w h en the bride a nd b r i d e g r o om h a ve b o th r e a c h ed majority. A nd that the parties at the t i me t h ey g ot m a r r i ed they w e re of a m a r r y i ng a ge that is a b o ve sixteen ( 1 6) for the girl a nd a b o ve eighteen ( 1 8) years for the b o y. T he learned authors said at p a ge 2 18 s ub p a r a g r a ph (iv). " T he a n n u l m e nt of a v o id m a r r i a ge is a discretional matter for the Court. In P R E T O R I US v P R E T O R I US 1 9 4 8 ( 4) SA 1 44 V an d en H e v er h e ld that w h e re a m a r r i a ge w as a nullity for lack of parental consent, if the parties continued to live together after t h ey h ad b e c o me m a j o rs the estoppel m i g ht be i n v o k ed in respect of that invalid m a r r i a ge In M A S U P HA v M O TA C of A N o. 14 of 1 9 88 (unreported) the father a t t e m p t ed to h a ve his daughter's m a r r i a ge entered into at the t i me s he w as a m i n or annulled w h en s he w as a m a j o r. T he C o u rt f o u nd that he -12- c o u ld n ot do this. In the c a se of M O R R I S ON v M O R R I S ON 1 9 7 2 ( 3) SA it w as held that the C o u rt c an c o n d o ne the guilt of a guilty party to a null a nd void marriage. F u r t h e r m o re V os AJ felt the p a r a g r a ph of estoppel w h i ch w as d e v e l o p ed in P R E T O R I US v P R E T O R I US s h o u ld n ot a p p ly to s u ch m a n a g e s ." T he c a se of P R E T O R I US v P R E T O R I US ( a b o v e) w as a c a se w h e re a w i fe instituted an action for a declaration of nullity of a m a r r i a ge w h e re s he h ad b e en a m i n or at the t i me w h en the m a r r i a ge c e r e m o ny h ad b e en p e r f o r m e d. It h ad b e en w i t h o ut h er guardian's consent. T he parties h ad continued to live together as m an a nd w i fe after reaching majority. T h at clearly w as the basis for the learned judge's holding that the w i fe w as e s t o p p ed f r om later filing for the declaration. It w as c o n s i d e r ed that children h ad e v en b e en b om out of the m a r r i a g e. A l t h o u gh the report is in the A f r i k a a ns language it a p p e a rs that the m a r r i a ge h ad b e en r e g a r d ed as void ab initio. T h is explains w hy the learned author of C O N T E M P O R A RY F A M I LY L AW characterized the c a se as h a v i ng dealt w i th a v o id as against a voidable marriage. It w o u ld h a ve not mattered to this C o u rt w h e t h er the marriage w as held to be voidable or void ab initio as l o ng as the parties h ad attained majority a nd continued to live as m an a nd w i fe u n d er the colour of the marriage. If not the results c an be devastating. I felt that it could n ot e v en be consistent with public policy of the M a r r i a ge A ct 1 9 74 if there w as that kind of a w h o l e s a le declarations. T he C o u rt w as o n ce again held to h a ve h ad a discretion is the c a se of M O R R I S ON v M O R R I S ON w h e re the action c o n c e r n ed a declaration that a b i g a m o us m a r r i a ge w as void. As in the case of P R E T O R I US it w as o ne of the parties w ho h ad b r o u g ht an action. T he present c a se is in the a l m o st similar m o u ld w i th that of M A S U P HA v M O TA (supra) in that it w as the father of the bride w ho -13- contested the validity of the m a r r i a ge w h e re he h ad not g i v en c o n s e nt to his d a u g h t er w ho w as at the time of the m a r r i a ge a m i n o r. This m e a ns that the A p p l i c a nt l o d g ed the application w h en the S e c o nd R e s p o n d e nt h ad already attained majority. I h a ve o n ce again received g u i d a n ce f r om this learned author of C O N T E M P O R A RY F A M I LY L AW OF L E S O T HO at p a ge 2 19 2 20 p a ra 1 5 . 13 voidable m a r r i a g es - in that "A voidable m a r r i a ge is for all p u r p o se valid until it is declared annulled by a d e c r ee of a C o u r t ." A nd the a u t h or c o n t i n u ed to s ay that - G r o u n ds of w h i ch the m a r r i a ge c an be voidable a c c o r d i ng to H A H LO in his H U S B A ND A ND W I FE are: (I) minority. W h en a m a r r i a ge to a m i n or w as contracted w i t h o ut parental c o n s e nt either parent of the m i n or c an h a ve it set aside. (ii) D u r e ss (iii) M i s t a k es as to the qualities of the other party As already stated in c a s es s u ch as minority there is a l w a ys the question ratification is possible w h e re a m i n or r e a c h es majority. It is possible for the parent of a m i n or to be e s t o p p ed f r om challenging the m a r r i a ge if he w a i t ed until the m i n or w as a m a j o r. S ee the c a se of D M A S U P HA v P M O TA C of A ( C I V) N o. 14 of 1 9 8 8 ." ( My e m p h a s i s) -14- Ordinarily it is a requirement of the l aw that parental c o n s e nt is a pre-requisite for the m a r r i a ge of a girl b e l ow the a ge of t w e n ty o ne ( 2 1) as stipulated in section 2 5 ( 1) of the M a r r i a ge A ct N o. 10 of 1 9 7 4. T h is despite the use of the w o rd "shall" c a n n ot m a ke it void ab initio. T h at a ny m a r r i a ge officer shall n ot s o l e m n i ze a ny m a r r i a ge w h en o ne of b o th of the m a r r y i ng partners is a m i n or w ho h ad not h ad the consent of a parent or parents p r e s u p p o s es that s u ch m a r r i a ge officer shall h a ve h ad k n o w l e d ge of the state of affairs (the a g e ). T h at the t e r ms are m a n d a t o ry in the section d o es not necessarily fate the m a r r i a ge as v o id ab initio. It m e a ns there w as a b r e a ch of s o m e t h i ng akin to an administrative directive. I w o u ld rest with the characterization of a m a r r i a ge s u ch as the instant o ne as being m e r e ly voidable, by the authors of F A M I LY L AW OF L E S O T HO citing the learned H a h lo in his S O U TH A F R I C AN L AW OF H U S B A ND A ND W I FE at p a g es 4 8 6 -7 of the latter. W h en s p e a k i ng a b o ut the p r o b l em of nullity w h e re o ne of the parties h ad entered into a b i g a m o us marriage, the learned author of C O N T E M P O R A RY F A M I LY L AW OF L E S O T HO h as this important c o m m e nt at p a ge 2 21 a nd he says: " T he p r o b l em of nullity (as H a h lo in his H U S B A ND W I FE h as correctly stated) m ay crop up in various s h a d es a nd contexts. Therefore w h e t h er a p e r s on c an a l w a ys be e s t o p p ed f r om asserting the nullity of a m a r r i a ge is a question w h i ch c a n n ot be regarded as settled in o ur l a w. Q u i te apparent f r om the different contacts in w h i ch this p r o b l em of nullity m i g ht arise, we h a ve to b e ar in m i nd the cultural c h a n g es a nd v i e ws or morality that typify o ur society." ( My underlining) -15- This i m p o r t a nt r e m a rk w h i ch s e e ms clearly to u n d e r s c o re the q u e s t i on of public policy is o ne that c a n n ot be i g n o r ed as b e i ng o ne of the b a s es of the C o u r t 's discretion. T he learned author H a h lo in his w o rk S O U TH A F R I C AN L AW OF H U S B A ND A ND W I FE (5th Edition) w h en c o m m e n t i ng a b o ut the c o n s e q u e n c es of lack of c o n s e nt of the parents or g u a r d i an to m i n or intending to m a r ry a nd then referring to the S o u th A f r i c an M a r r i a ge A ct h ad this to s ay at p a ge 9 3: "A m a r r i a ge b e t w e en p e r s o ns of w h om o ne or b o th are m i n o rs w h i ch h as b e en contracted w i t h o ut the requisite c o n s e nt of the parents or g u a r d i a ns of the m i n o rs w h e re c o n s e nt is required, is n ot v o id but v o i d a b le it m ay be dissolved by O r d er of C o u rt or application for dissolution of the m a r r i a ge b y: ( 1) a parent or g u a r d i an of the m i n o r, m a de before the m i n or attains majority a nd within six w e e ks of the date on w h i ch the parent or guardian b e c a me a w a re of the existence of the m a r r i a ge or (2) T he m i n or himself, before he attains majority or within three m o n t h s ." ( My underlining) T he capacity of the bride or b r i d e g r o om to s e ek to a n n ul a m a r r i a ge is of c o u r se not limitless. So is the capacity of the dissatisfied g u a r d i an or parent to a p p ly for a n n u l m e nt of a m a r r i a g e. T he statement of H a h lo q u o t ed a b o ve at (1) gives a clue to w h at the C o u rt of A p p e al h ad in m i nd w h en it stated in M A S U P HA v M O TA case (supra) at p a ge 59 w h e re W e n t z el JA said: "I feel it appropriate to a dd that if the application h ad t a k en its full course it w o u ld h a ve raised very difficult matters s u ch as locus standi of a father in such proceedings after his daughter attains majority, the status of s u ch a marriage w h e t h er it is void or voidable a nd the c o n s e q u e n c es of a ny child b om of s u ch a marriage, if it should be set aside or declared void." It should be clear that not only did I find that the Applicant did n ot h a ve the c o m p e t e n ce to seek the declaration after his daughter h ad attained majority, the parties' marriage h ad b e en ratified by the fact of the bride h a v i ng r e a c h ed majority by this time w h en the application w as m a d e. S ee also H a h l o 's w o rk at p a ge 9 2. I dismissed the application. I decided m at there w o u ld be no order as to costs. T. M o n a p a t hi J u d ge J u d g m e nt noted by : M r. M p o po