D.R.M v D.M.K (2017/2016) [2018] ZALMPPHC 62 (7 November 2018)

D.R.M v D.M.K (2017/2016) [2018] ZALMPPHC 62 (7 November 2018)

The court found that, despite the payment of lobola, there was no formal handing over of the Defendant to the Plaintiff or his family, as required by customary law and practice. The evidence of the Plaintiff and his witnesses was preferred over that of the Defendant and her witnesses, who failed to establish that the handing over occurred. The court held that the handing over of the bride is an essential requirement for a valid customary marriage, distinguishing marriage from mere cohabitation. Without this, no valid customary marriage exists between the parties. The Defendant's claims for maintenance and a share in the Plaintiff's pension benefits were not addressed substantively, as the...

Citation
[2018] ZALMPPHC 62
Parties
Plaintiff: D R M; Defendant: D M K
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2018
Case Number
2017/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
No valid customary marriage exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Judges
Makgoba
Legal Topics
Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, Validity of Customary Marriage, Handing Over of Bride, Lobola Payment, Maintenance of Minor Child
Family and Children Recognition of Customary Marriages Act Validity of Customary Marriage Handing Over of Bride Lobola Payment Maintenance of Minor Child

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D R M

Plaintiff

D M K

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid customary marriage exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the payment of lobola without the handing over of the bride constitutes a valid customary marriage.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is entitled to maintenance and a share in the Plaintiff's pension benefits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the payment of lobola, there was no formal handing over of the Defendant to the Plaintiff or his family, as required by customary law and practice. The evidence of the Plaintiff and his witnesses was preferred over that of the Defendant and her witnesses, who failed to establish that the handing over occurred. The court held that the handing over of the bride is an essential requirement for a valid customary marriage, distinguishing marriage from mere cohabitation. Without this, no valid customary marriage exists between the parties. The Defendant's claims for maintenance and a share in the Plaintiff's pension benefits were not addressed substantively, as the...

Court Disposition

No valid customary marriage exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Orders

  • It is declared that no valid customary marriage exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
  • The issue of maintenance of the minor child born of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is referred to the Maintenance Court.