Manzini v Dlalisa and Another (2024/101585) [2024] ZAGPJHC 920 (6 September 2024)

Manzini v Dlalisa and Another (2024/101585) [2024] ZAGPJHC 920 (6 September 2024)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased and the first respondent were married under customary law. Lobolo negotiations occurred, partial payment was made, and the deceased was handed over to the respondent's family. Their long-term cohabitation and acceptance by the deceased's family supported the existence of a customary marriage. In the absence of a will or clear indication of the deceased's wishes, the person entitled to determine burial arrangements is the spouse. Even if the marriage was not valid, the respondent's longstanding relationship with the deceased and their shared children weighed in favour of allowing him to decide on burial. The court applied...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 920
Parties
Applicant: Sibusiso Brian Manzini; Respondent: Khululekani Welcome Dlalisa; Respondent: Amathole Funeral Services
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2024
Case Number
2024/101585
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Relief Sought in Urgent Court
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Customary Marriage Validity, Burial Rights, Urgent Interdict, Lobolo Requirements, Cohabitation Presumption
Family and Children Civil Procedure Customary Marriage Validity Burial Rights Urgent Interdict Lobolo Requirements Cohabitation Presumption

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibusiso Brian Manzini

Applicant

Khululekani Welcome Dlalisa

Respondent

Amathole Funeral Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Relief Sought in Urgent Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent was legally married to the deceased under customary law and thus entitled to determine her burial arrangements.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, as the deceased's son, has the right to prevent the first respondent from burying the deceased in Soweto.
  3. 3 What legal principles govern burial rights in the absence of a will or clear indication of the deceased's wishes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased and the first respondent were married under customary law. Lobolo negotiations occurred, partial payment was made, and the deceased was handed over to the respondent's family. Their long-term cohabitation and acceptance by the deceased's family supported the existence of a customary marriage. In the absence of a will or clear indication of the deceased's wishes, the person entitled to determine burial arrangements is the spouse. Even if the marriage was not valid, the respondent's longstanding relationship with the deceased and their shared children weighed in favour of allowing him to decide on burial. The court applied...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.