The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) recently ruled in a high-stakes legal battle, dismissing an appeal by Nthuseni Christinah Manwadu, who sought official recognition as the legal wife of the late Livhuwani Robert Manwadu. The decision follows a long-standing dispute over Robert’s estate, which escalated after his death in February 2017. Both Christinah and another woman, Matodzi Joyce Manwadu, claimed rights to his estate, each asserting that she was the legal wife.
The case traces its origins to a decision by the Limpopo High Court, which initially recognized Joyce as the lawful wife and the legitimate claimant to Robert’s estate. Joyce, who had been married to Robert under customary law, submitted an uncertified copy of her ID and an endorsement of the date of their marriage, claiming it was prima facie evidence of their union. However, the court ruled that Joyce had not sufficiently proven the validity of her customary marriage and instead recognized Christinah’s civil marriage to Robert, which was formalized with a joint will.
Despite the ruling, Joyce appealed, and the court overturned the initial decision, declaring Christinah’s marriage null and void. Christinah, dismayed by the outcome, sought relief from the SCA, hoping for a reversal of the decision.
At the SCA, a complex web of evidence was presented. Joyce testified that she had met Robert in 1978 while still in high school, becoming pregnant with their first child shortly thereafter. The couple negotiated a lobola (bride price) payment of R600, which Joyce’s father received in 1979, confirming their traditional marriage. However, as the years passed, their relationship became strained, particularly after Robert moved in with Christinah in the 1990s, resulting in Joyce leaving their home.
In the midst of the growing tensions, Joyce’s claims of marital legitimacy began to unravel. DNA tests later confirmed that Robert was not the father of two of her children, despite Joyce’s insistence under oath that he was. Additionally, Joyce could not provide a marriage certificate for her customary union, nor could she locate any official documentation of the event. She contended that the loss of the certificate was due to an administrative issue with the Thohoyandou Magistrate’s Office, but this explanation failed to convince the court. Joyce argued that her change of surname in 1993 and the new ID card were sufficient proof of her marriage to Robert, but the court found her evidence lacking.
In contrast, Christinah argued that she had been married to Robert for over 20 years and had four children with him. She produced a certified copy of their civil marriage certificate and maintained that Joyce only sought to claim her rights after Robert’s death. Christinah also noted that Joyce had never previously contested their marriage.
SCA Judge Tati Makgoka, presiding over the case, scrutinized the evidence presented. While Christinah had produced a marriage certificate, Makgoka ruled that Joyce’s ID document and the endorsement of their marriage date in 1979 were sufficient proof of the existence of a valid customary marriage between Joyce and Robert. He stated that the document, which detailed Joyce’s marital status and the names of both parties, could reasonably be understood by an objective person as confirming their union.
The SCA ultimately dismissed Christinah’s appeal, affirming the earlier ruling that Joyce was the legal wife of the deceased. The court’s decision underscores the significance of documented evidence in marital disputes, particularly when conflicting claims are made over the validity of unions and inheritance rights. This case highlights the complexities of customary and civil marriages and the legal battles that can arise when family relationships intertwine with financial stakes.
