KEY POINTS
- The legal authority determined the April 2010 marriage to be a valid customary union.
- The court rejected Husband’s allegation that his wife had filed a fake lobola letter.
- Contrary to his statements the husband paid R5,000 as part of the lobola even though he claimed it went to a spiritual cleansing ceremony.
The Northern Cape High Court based in Kimberley protected the marital status between two individuals even though the husband had both questioned the authenticity of the lobola document and maintained that his financial payment served as ritual expenses due to his wife’s pregnancy loss.
Wife provides evidence of customary marriage
Both parties started divorce proceedings after the husband stated his marriage with the wife never happened while she stood by their customary marital union. The woman stated she met her future husband at his tenure in her mother’s residence during 2004.
The woman traveled to Lesotho for his family celebrations in December 2009 and received a traditional Shweshwe wedding outfit after they slaughtered a sheep during rituals for a bride. She presented evidence through documented pictures from that occasion.
The trial witness described how during April 2010 he attended customary negotiations about how the groom’s family received twelve cows worth R120,000 while paying R5,000 at the start and agreeing to future payments.
Court officials received both the lobola agreement and letter which bear signatures of the negotiating parties.
According to the witness’s evaluation there was no tradition in their culture requiring both a miscarriage and cleansing ceremony to extend negotiations.
The husband rejected his marital status by alleging that someone had forged both the marriage contract and the letter within it.
During 2009 the husband conveyed his wife to his family though he denied their relationship by presenting her as someone he would financially assist. He accepted that his family killed sheep during the meeting but he declared his wife was not officially recognized as his spouse.
The husband maintained that the R5,000 distribution funded a cleaning ceremony and he would support her education expenses as well as driving lessons instead of following the tradition of paying lobola.
He declared that the lobola letter was a fake document because he discovered it for the first time during his 2015 interaction with her attorneys’ legal request. The defendant received backing from both his father regarding his declarations.
Judge rules in favor of wife
Through her position on the case Judge Cecile Williams found that the woman’s account was more trustworthy thus validating the April 2010 lobola process during which R5,000 was delivered.
A judge stated verification lasted many hours yet the woman together with her witness stood firm against all questioning. Because of this evaluation the court approved the customary marriage union and required the husband to cover application expenses.
