Mboneleli v Londa (2020/29437) [2021] ZAGPJHC 823 (15 December 2021)

Mboneleli v Londa (2020/29437) [2021] ZAGPJHC 823 (15 December 2021)

The court found that the respondent's occupation of the property was lawful as she was the applicant's wife under a valid customary marriage. The applicant failed to disclose material facts regarding the lobola payment and the existence of the marriage, and his version was found to be dishonest and untenable. The court accepted the respondent's evidence that the marriage was concluded in accordance with customary law, and that her right to remain in the matrimonial home was sui generis and not subject to the applicant's unilateral withdrawal of consent. The provisions of PIE do not apply to spouses in a marriage, and the applicant cannot evict the respondent without providing suitable...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 823
Parties
Applicant: Vanto Nimrod Mboneleli; Respondent: Bulelwa Londa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Case Number
2020/29437
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Thupaatlase
Legal Topics
Customary Marriage, Unlawful Occupation, Lobola Payment, Matrimonial Home Rights
Family and Children Land and Property Customary Marriage Unlawful Occupation Lobola Payment Matrimonial Home Rights

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vanto Nimrod Mboneleli

Applicant

Bulelwa Londa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is an unlawful occupier under PIE or a spouse with a right to remain in the matrimonial home.
  2. 2 Whether a valid customary marriage was concluded between the parties.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of ejectment against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's occupation of the property was lawful as she was the applicant's wife under a valid customary marriage. The applicant failed to disclose material facts regarding the lobola payment and the existence of the marriage, and his version was found to be dishonest and untenable. The court accepted the respondent's evidence that the marriage was concluded in accordance with customary law, and that her right to remain in the matrimonial home was sui generis and not subject to the applicant's unilateral withdrawal of consent. The provisions of PIE do not apply to spouses in a marriage, and the applicant cannot evict the respondent without providing suitable...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.