Lebea v Seromo (2025/030885) [2025] ZAGPJHC 766 (5 August 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 766
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Nieuwoudt
- Case number
- 2025/030885
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Nieuwoudt
- Case number
- 2025/030885
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Applicant met the requirements of Section 21 of the Children’s Act, and that the Respondent's dissatisfaction with statements regarding the payment of lebola did not prevent the granting of the order. The issue of whether lebola was paid in full was deemed irrelevant to the relief sought, which concerned the change of the minor child's surname and amendment of the birth registration. The court was satisfied that the Applicant's parental rights and responsibilities were not in dispute and that the relief sought could be granted.
Court disposition
Order granted in terms of the draft order uploaded to Caselines 013: 4-6.
Orders
- The minor child's surname is to be changed as per the draft order.
- The birth registration of the minor child is to be amended accordingly.
- The Applicant's parental rights and responsibilities are confirmed as per Section 21 of the Children’s Act.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mamatsheu Gerrison Lebea
Applicant Counsel: Adv M RourkeLucky Portia Seromo
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Final Order After Opposed Hearing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Applicant meets the requirements of Section 21 of the Children’s Act to obtain the relief sought.
- 02
Whether the Respondent's dissatisfaction with statements in the founding affidavit prevents the granting of the order.
- 03
Whether the payment of lebola is relevant to the relief sought regarding the minor child's surname and birth registration.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Applicant seeks an order to change the minor child's surname and amend the birth registration. He denies that he and the Respondent were married under Customary Law and denies paying lebola in full, but admits to paying damages for the minor child. He maintains that his parental rights and responsibilities are not in dispute and that he meets the requirements of Section 21 of the Children’s Act.
- Respondent
- The Respondent does not oppose the relief sought but expresses dissatisfaction with certain statements in the Applicant's founding affidavit, particularly regarding the payment of lebola. She contends that some statements are untruthful and is specifically unhappy with paragraph 4 of the draft order, which addresses the payment of lebola.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Section 21
The requirements of Section 21 of the Children’s Act must be met for a parent to obtain parental rights and responsibilities and the relief sought.
- 02
Court's reasoning in this judgment
The payment of lebola is not relevant to the relief sought regarding the change of the minor child's surname and amendment of birth registration.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Applicant met the requirements of Section 21 of the Children’s Act, and that the Respondent's dissatisfaction with statements regarding the payment of lebola did not prevent the granting of the order. The issue of whether lebola was paid in full was deemed irrelevant to the relief sought, which concerned the change of the minor child's surname and amendment of the birth registration. The court was satisfied that the Applicant's parental rights and responsibilities were not in dispute and that the relief sought could be granted.
Obiter and limits
- The court ensured that the Respondent understood all paragraphs of the draft order, confirming her comprehension despite her continued dissatisfaction with paragraph 4.
- The matter was stood down and rolled over to allow the parties to address concerns and adapt the draft order, demonstrating the court's commitment to procedural fairness.
Court disposition
Order granted in terms of the draft order uploaded to Caselines 013: 4-6.
- The minor child's surname is to be changed as per the draft order.
- The birth registration of the minor child is to be amended accordingly.
- The Applicant's parental rights and responsibilities are confirmed as per Section 21 of the Children’s Act.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2025-030885
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
In the matter between:
MAMATSHEU GERRISON
LEBEA
Applicant
and
LUCKY PORTIA
SEROMO
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Nieuwoudt, AJ
[1] The matter was initially called on 5 August 2025 with Adv Rourke appearing for the Applicant and the Respondent in person.
[2] From my discussion with the Applicant’s counsel and the Respondent it was clear that the relief sought was not opposed by the Respondent, but the Respondent has some concerns about some statements made by the Applicant in his founding affidavit which she was of the opinion were not truthful.
[3] I asked Adv Rourke to discuss with the Respondent the proposed draft order and adapt it to address her concerns. The court then stood the matter down to 7 August 2025 at 14h00 for the draft order to be made an order of court.
[4] When the matter was called on the 7th of August 2025 the court was informed that the Respondent was not satisfied with the draft order and more specifically paragraphs 4, 7, 8 and 9. The court then rolled the matter over to 8 August 2025 to be heard virtually.
[5] On the 8th of August 2025 Adv Rourke and the Respondent in person appeared again. The court specifically requested the Respondent to address the court on paragraph 4 of the draft order which she was still not happy with. In short, her discontent is with the fact that the Applicant is denying paying the lebola in full. He admits to paying the damages for the minor child in question but denies paying the lebola in full.
[6] Adv Rourke submitted that the Applicant is not willing to admit to that as he denies that the Respondent and him were married in terms of Customary Law. He is therefore not willing to admit to paying lebola in full.
[7] The Court agreed with Adv Rourke that the full payment of lebola or not is not relevant for the matter before court, i.e. the changing of the minor child’s surname and amending the birth registration of the minor child.
[8] Although the Applicant’s parental rights and responsibilities are not in dispute, I am satisfied that he meets the requirements of Section 21 of the Children’s Act, Act 38 of 2005 read with Section 26 of the Children's Act which does form part of this application and that the Court can give the relief sought by the Applicant.
[9] I note the Respondent’s dissatisfaction with paragraph 4 of the draft order, but I am not convinced that her dissatisfaction prohibits me from making the order sought by the Applicant.
[10] The Court also discussed the other paragraphs with her to ensure that she understands them. She confirms that she does but re-iterated her dissatisfaction with paragraph 4.
I therefore make an order in terms of the draft order uploaded to Caselines 013: 4-6
NIEUWOUDT, E
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Date of Hearing:
5 August 2025
Date of Judgment:
8 August 2025
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
Adv M Rourke
Instructed by:
Cavanagh & Richards Attorneys
For the Respondent:
The Respondent in person
Instructed by:
n/a
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.