- The man’s sister asked for permission to exhume his remains, pointing to bruises, scratches, and what she believed were signs of a struggle at his home.
- His wife insisted he died of natural causes. Her view was supported by medical evidence and a report from an emergency care practitioner, which found no injuries.
- The court dismissed the application, finding there was not enough evidence to justify exhumation, and no proof the police had failed to do their duty.
A woman who raised questions about her brother’s death could not get a court order to have his body exhumed for a forensic post-mortem.
The High Court in Johannesburg, under Acting Deputy Judge President TP Mudau, found that her claims of foul play were not backed up by expert evidence. The court dismissed her urgent application on 12 October 2026.
With the support of other family members, the applicant wanted the body exhumed to determine the cause of death. She also wanted the South African Police Service (SAPS) to investigate, an inquest, and an order to stop the man’s wife from interfering with the process.
The man died on 17 August 2026 at the mission house of the Holy Cross Anglican Church in Orlando West, Soweto, where he lived with his wife. Dr Kenosi Mosalakae certified that he died from natural causes the next day. He was buried at Westpark Cemetery on 25 August 2026.
The applicant said that relatives who washed the body at the mortuary on 24 August noticed bruises and marks that made them suspicious about how he had died. They saw bruising below his right knee, a mark on his forehead, injuries around his knuckles, an indentation on his wrist, and scratches on his abdomen.
The family also pointed to broken pots, glasses, and crockery at the home, which they saw as possible signs of a struggle. The applicant also claimed her brother had suffered physical and verbal abuse from his wife.
She first said that a case opened in January 2025 was a criminal assault matter, but her lawyers later clarified that it was actually an application for a protection order.
Wife disputes allegations
The wife denied ever abusing her husband and said he died of natural causes. She explained that he had Type 2 diabetes and severe high blood pressure, but was otherwise in good health apart from these chronic illnesses.
Church counsellor Trevor Ncengwa backed up her version of an earlier incident, saying he saw the man fall in his office on 16 August. Ncengwa said the man grazed his right knee, bumped his arm against furniture, complained of pain in his leg, and struggled to walk.
The wife said church staff arrived at their home on the evening of 17 August and woke her up by knocking at the door. She tried to wake her husband before opening the door to let them in. When she and the others went back to the bedroom, they found that he had died.
Emergency care practitioner Lucky Lerato Langa, who works for the City of Johannesburg Emergency Medical Services, came to the scene and declared the man dead at 8.40pm. His report noted that he examined the body from head to toe and found no injuries. Police officers also came to the house, but, based on the evidence shown in court, they saw no signs of foul play and did not open an inquest docket or start a criminal case at the time.
Mosalakae examined the body on 18 August and certified that he died of natural causes. In a supporting affidavit, he said that the way the man’s mouth drooped to one side in photographs could be a sign of a stroke. He also explained that the man’s high blood pressure and diabetes made him more likely to have a stroke or die suddenly from natural causes.
The wife disputed the family’s claims about bruises, saying that neither the relatives who saw the body at the mortuary nor the undertaker had raised any concerns about injuries. She also argued that the applicant had not provided expert evidence to show that a post-mortem done more than a month after burial would give reliable results.
Judge finds insufficient evidence of foul play
Judge Mudau said the key issue was whether the applicant had shown good reason to suspect the death was not from natural causes, enough to justify exhuming the body and requiring the police to act under the Inquests Act 58 of 1959.
The judge said the applicant’s argument was based on non-expert observations and guesses from photographs taken a week after the death. She did not provide medical, forensic, or pathological evidence that challenged the opinions of Langa or Mosalakae or showed that the reported injuries could not have happened in the fall Ncengwa described.
The judge also pointed out that the applicant’s story about the emergency medical response was inconsistent. The application questioned who had attended and certified the death, but also used parts of the emergency medical services declaration to support other claims. Judge Mudau said someone in court cannot accept and reject the same evidence at different times.
The claim of earlier abuse was also weakened by the protection-order documents provided by the wife. In that application, the deceased wrote that the matter was not urgent, that he had no fears if the order was refused, and that he felt safe returning home to his wife. The judge found these statements made the applicant’s claims of ongoing abuse less convincing.
Judge Mudau said that not having a forensic post-mortem did not mean the death was unnatural or that an inquest had to happen. According to Section 3(1) of the Inquests Act, police must only investigate when they have reason to believe someone died from something other than natural causes.
The applicant had not shown that the police refused to investigate or failed to act in a reasonable time. The judge said that if there was new information, it should be reported to the police as set out in Section 2(1) of the Act. A private investigation could help with such a complaint, but could not replace the official investigation by the authorities.
The court also found that the applicant had not shown whether she had asked for or been refused the required permissions for exhumation. The City of Johannesburg’s Cemeteries and Crematoria By-law, 2026, requires written consent before an exhumation, although a court can waive this in certain cases. The judge also noted that a required official had not been made part of the case.
In addition, the applicant had not given expert evidence to show that exhuming the body and doing a post-mortem at this stage would give reliable results. Mudau said exhumation is a serious intrusion on the dignity of the deceased and his surviving spouse, who has the main right to decide what happens regarding his burial and final resting place.
Application dismissed, applicant ordered to pay costs
The judge found that the wife’s version was backed up by independent professional evidence and was not so unlikely that it could be ignored in these proceedings. By the rules for disputed facts in such cases, the court accepted her version where it could possibly be true.
The application was dismissed, so the exhumation, forensic post-mortem, police investigation, and inquest were refused. The judge also refused to grant an interdict against the wife because the applicant had not shown good reason to think she would interfere with the exhumation. Simply opposing the application in court was not, by itself, proof that she might try to interfere.
On the issue of costs, Judge Mudau said the applicant had acted in good faith and honestly believed there were grounds to think her brother’s death was not natural. “The application was not frivolous or an abuse of the court process, and there is no reason to grant the punitive costs against her that the wife had asked for,” the judge said.
However, considering the cost of opposing the application on short notice and the fact that the wife had recently been discharged from a mental health facility, the judge ordered the applicant to pay the wife’s costs on an ordinary party-and-party basis, including her lawyer’s fees.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
