South Africa Case Law

Mbalane v Mbalane and Others (02/2025)

Mbalane v Mbalane and Others (02/2025) [2025] ZAECMHC 14 (4 March 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

02/2025

Judge

Cengani-Mbakaza

The court found that no customary union existed between the applicant and the first respondent, as evidenced by affidavits and official documentation. The applicant's reliance on the deceased's surname and initiation rituals was insufficient to establish burial rights at the paternal home. The deceased's wishes regarding burial location were not credibly established; the only explicit wishes presented were those of the applicant. The court held that both parents are heirs, but the deceased was cared for by his mother from infancy and laid to rest at her home. The urgency was accepted due to t…

Source excerpt

• Burial Rights
• Customary Law Application
• Urgent Interdict
• Exhumation
• Intestate Succession

M.M.M and Others v L.N.M and Others (86457/2023)

M.M.M and Others v L.N.M and Others (86457/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1032 (7 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

86457/2023

Judge

Y Carrim

Urgent application over a burial dispute was struck off after the deceased had already been buried and decomposition had begun.

• Burial Rights
• Exhumation
• Customary Law
• Urgency
• Dignity In Burial
• Burial-rights

Gianchandi v Registrar of Deeds, Pietermaritzburg and Others (D3519/2021)

Gianchandi v Registrar of Deeds, Pietermaritzburg and Others (D3519/2021) [2023] ZAKZDHC 10 (14 March 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D3519/2021

Judge

Carrim

The court found that the application was not urgent as the deceased had already been buried and decomposition had commenced, making the prospect of a viewing unlikely. The applicants failed to demonstrate that they could not obtain substantial redress in the ordinary course, and no evidence of foul play or need for an autopsy was presented. While the conduct of the first respondent was condemned as insensitive and inappropriate, the legal threshold for urgency was not met. The matter was therefore struck from the urgent roll, with no order as to costs.

Source excerpt

• Burial Rights
• Urgent Interdict
• Customary Law
• Exhumation
• Dignity In Burial

Ntshate and Another v Nqikela and Others (2420/2019)

Ntshate and Another v Nqikela and Others (2420/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 69 (25 June 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2420/2019

Judge

NG Beshe

The court authorised exhumation and reburial of the deceased in Peddie, but refused declaratory and document-relief claims and made no costs order.

• Burial Rights
• Customary Law
• Exhumation
• Declaratory Relief
• Burial-rights
• Customary-law

Shai v Botlholo and Others (01091/2020)

Shai v Botlholo and Others (01091/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 156 (30 April 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

01091/2020

Judge

Senyatsi ML

The court found that the applicant, as the lawful spouse of the deceased, retained the primary right to bury him. The first respondent's reliance on her status as an heir and cohabiting partner did not override the applicant's marital rights, especially in the absence of any testamentary direction regarding burial. The first respondent's conduct in proceeding with the burial despite being aware of the pending legal dispute was intended to frustrate the applicant's rights and justified a punitive costs order. The urgency of the application was not self-created, as the applicant acted promptly…

Source excerpt

• Burial Rights
• Exhumation
• Customary Marriage
• Urgent Interdict
• Costs Order