Rekathusa Funeral Parlour v Mphiki and Another (54/2018) [2020] ZANCHC 21 (22 May 2020)

Rekathusa Funeral Parlour v Mphiki and Another (54/2018) [2020] ZANCHC 21 (22 May 2020)

The court found that the appellant was not contractually or delictually liable for the expenses of exhumation and reburial. The evidence did not establish any agreement to withhold the body pending court resolution, nor did it show that the appellant acted wrongfully or negligently. The appellant released the body...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZANCHC 21
Parties
Appellant: Rekathusa Funeral Parlour; Respondent: Mphiki, Mmacowe Martha; Respondent: Mphiki, Kerotse Lillian
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Case Number
54/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From the Court a Quo's Order Regarding Liability for Exhumation and Reburial Expenses.
Outcome
Appeal upheld; orders against the appellant set aside and substituted.
Judges
Olivier, Mamosebo, Nxumalo
Legal Topics
Funeral Dispute, Marital Status Declaration, Costs Order, Exhumation and Reburial Liability
Civil Procedure Family and Children Funeral Dispute Marital Status Declaration Costs Order Exhumation and Reburial Liability

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rekathusa Funeral Parlour

Appellant

Mphiki, Mmacowe Martha

Respondent

Mphiki, Kerotse Lillian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From the Court a Quo's Order Regarding Liability for Exhumation and Reburial Expenses.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, Rekathusa Funeral Parlour, should be held liable for the expenses of exhumation and reburial of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the release of the body by the appellant was wrongful or negligent.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the appellant was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant was not contractually or delictually liable for the expenses of exhumation and reburial. The evidence did not establish any agreement to withhold the body pending court resolution, nor did it show that the appellant acted wrongfully or negligently. The appellant released the body based on the written instruction of the second respondent, who claimed to be the lawful wife and policy holder, and there was no clear indication that the appellant's representatives had legal knowledge to determine otherwise. The costs order against the appellant was also unjustified, as the first respondent did not seek such relief in her notice of motion and only raised it...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; orders against the appellant set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The application against Rekathusa Funeral Parlour for the relief in paragraph d) of the notice of motion dated 11 January 2018 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made against either the applicant or the second respondent; each will bear their own legal costs.