- The mother was left out of the planning after the father went ahead with arrangements for the ceremonies, even though she tried to take part.
- The father said that their son turning 18 meant the mother no longer had parental rights, and that Xhosa custom did not give her any role in the planning
- Judge Mudau found that her rights could not be taken away after the fact, and that living customary law could not justify leaving her out
A mother who was left out of planning her son’s traditional Xhosa initiation ceremonies has now secured a court order that requires his father to include her.
The ceremonies, Umngeno and Umgidi, are set for December 2026 and mark the young man’s shift from childhood to adulthood. These events hold deep cultural, spiritual, and family meaning.
The parents divorced on 20 May 2016. The divorce order gave them joint parental rights and responsibilities for their minor children, with the children mainly living with the mother.
They have three children. The eldest is now 21, their son was born on 16 June 2008 and turned 18 on 16 June 2026, and their youngest is 12.
The mother said she found out in January 2026 that the father had started planning the ceremonies. On 12 January, she sent him WhatsApp messages with her suggestions. He replied the next day, saying he had not confirmed details with his family and would let her know if he needed her help.
She said she was shocked to be left out and later questioned how a “save the date” message could have been sent to their son when his final exam schedule was not yet set.
On 23 March, she asked the father for a meeting to discuss her role, but no meeting happened. She said he stopped answering her calls and ignored her messages.
Her lawyers sent a letter of demand on 23 July, asking for confirmation that she would be involved by 30 July. The father did not reply. She launched her court application on 17 August.
Father argued that she had no role
The father opposed the semi-urgent application on three grounds. He argued that the mother’s case had no legal basis because their son had turned 18 and was no longer subject to parental responsibilities and rights. He also argued that the urgency was self-created, since she had known about the preparations since January.
His third point was that the mother had no right to be part of planning the ceremonies. Judge TP Mudau rejected his argument about urgency. The judge found that the mother had made ongoing efforts to resolve the issue without going to court, including trying to talk directly and sending a formal letter.
The ceremonies were only a few months away and required planning with family consultations and other arrangements. The father’s own version showed that preparations were already underway and that an event planner had been hired.
The judge found that a normal court hearing would only happen after the ceremonies, which would mean the mother would get no real relief.
Turning 18 did not erase the mother’s rights
Judge Mudau also rejected the idea that the son turning 18 ended the mother’s right to challenge being left out. The exclusion started in January and went on until she brought the application in August. For most of that time, the son was still a minor, and the mother still had parental rights under the divorce order and the Children’s Act.
Section 31 of the Children’s Act says that when two people share parental rights, one must give proper consideration to the other’s views before making decisions that affect a child’s relationship with a parent or family member.
“The respondent cannot escape accountability for conduct that was unlawful when it occurred simply by pointing, after the fact, to the subsequent attainment of majority,” Judge Mudau said.
The judge also looked at the son’s ongoing dependence and vulnerability. The decision noted that just turning 18 does not automatically make a young person less vulnerable or mean they should be forced to take legal action against a parent.
Judge Mudau found that making the son fight his father in court just to include his mother would put him in the middle of the dispute at a crucial time in his life.
Family’s own customs became central to the dispute
The father argued that Xhosa custom put the ceremonies under the authority of the paternal side of the family and gave the mother only a symbolic role as iZibazana. The court compared this argument with what the family had actually done recently.
In December 2025, the mother had played a full part in the Imbeleko ceremony for their daughter. The judge found that the family’s actions at that time showed what their living customary law really was.
Judge Mudau emphasised that living customary law is not fixed or limited to what is written in books. “The customary law should be understood by first accepting that it is not static but a dynamic, flexible system which continuously evolves,” the judge said.
The court made a distinction between the sacred, gender-restricted parts of Ulwaluko and the public and organisational parts of Umngeno and Umgidi. The mother was not trying to interfere with the sacred initiation or the traditional male guardianship of the initiation camp. She only wanted to help with things like catering, invitations, guest lists and logistics.
The judgment noted that more than 150 guests were expected from her side of the family, and that things like catering, seating, sanitation, marquees and invitations all still needed to be organised.
Custom cannot justify gender exclusion
Judge Mudau also found that customary law must comply with the Constitution. The judge said that even if a custom tried to exclude a biological mother from planning, it would need to be tested against rights like equality and dignity.
“Any customary rule that seeks to reduce a biological mother to a passive spectator during her son’s foundational rite of passage, while granting the father unilateral executive control, constitutes unfair gender-based discrimination,” Judge Mudau said.
The father had agreed that the mother would receive ceremonial recognition as the initiate’s mother. But the judge found that this was not enough to resolve the dispute.
A mother cannot truly be recognised as the initiate’s mother if she is left out of planning and decisions about the ceremony. The court also found that the father’s case was weakened by the family’s recent practice, where the mother played an active role in a major traditional ceremony.
Mother must be included in all planning
Judge Mudau declared that the mother was entitled to be involved fully and equally with the father in all planning, preparation and decisions about the December ceremonies.
The father was ordered to include her in family planning meetings, all preparations for Umngeno, catering and hosting for Umgidi, and the design and distribution of the Umgidi invitation to her guests.
He was also ordered not to exclude or obstruct her from taking part in the planning, preparation or running of the ceremonies. The father was told to pay the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
