- The court found the matter urgent and allowed the application to proceed despite procedural non-compliance.
- The judge held that burial rights vest in the children where no will exists and a marriage is disputed.
- The deceased’s own wish to be buried in Cape Town proved decisive, overriding competing family claims.
The High Court in Johannesburg has resolved a bitterly contested burial dispute by prioritising the wishes of the deceased’s children and his stated preference, ordering that he be buried in Cape Town rather than Zimbabwe.
The case arose after the first applicant, a woman claiming to be the deceased’s customary law wife, found herself in direct conflict with the deceased’s brother, who denied the marriage entirely and insisted the deceased was Zimbabwean and should be buried in his home country.
Moving urgently, the applicants sought a court order compelling Kings and Queens Funeral Parlour and Johnson Mahoka Dube to release the body for burial in Cape Town. The first applicant maintained that she was the surviving spouse and, therefore, entitled to bury the deceased. Her son with the deceased, the second applicant, stood firmly behind her.
Judge MV Noko accepted that the matter required immediate intervention, stating, “I find that the application is indeed urgent and that non-compliance with deadlines, forms, directives, and time frames is tolerated.”
Background and competing family claims
The woman told the court that she and the deceased were both from KwaZulu-Natal and had married under customary law in 2001. She produced a lobola letter in support of her claim and said they had two children together. The family had lived in Johannesburg before eventually settling in Cape Town, where the deceased built and ran a security business.
She further explained that after the deceased suffered fatal burn injuries in February 2026, he told their son that he wished to be buried in Cape Town. She was later informed, however, that the deceased’s body had been claimed by his brother, Dube, and released from Tygerberg Hospital without her knowledge.
Dube disputed nearly every aspect of her account. He denied that any valid marriage had ever taken place and alleged that both the deceased and the first applicant were Zimbabwean nationals who may have obtained South African documentation fraudulently. He insisted that the deceased’s true surname was Dube and that he belonged in Zimbabwe, to be buried there in keeping with family and customary tradition.
Supporting affidavits from relatives, including a woman who claimed to be the deceased’s eldest daughter, reinforced the respondent’s version and pushed for burial in Zimbabwe. She argued that in the absence of a recognised surviving spouse, the right to make burial decisions should fall to her as the eldest child.
Court rejects marriage dispute as decisive factor
The court was clear that it could not determine the validity of the alleged customary marriage on the papers before it, particularly given how closely that question was entangled with disputed citizenship. Judge Noko explained, “This court cannot determine the dispute regarding the validity of the marriage, which is closely linked to the citizenship status… which would require oral evidence.”
Crucially, the judge found that resolving the marriage dispute was not necessary to decide who held burial rights. The court instead turned to the established legal principles that govern burial where no will exists.
Judge Noko stated, “The parties acknowledge that… the priority… would be the person named in the Will, failing which the surviving spouse, then the children, parents and thereafter the siblings.”
Children’s rights and the deceased’s wishes take priority
With the marriage unresolved, the court placed decisive weight on the rights of the deceased’s children. It was common cause that the woman and the deceased had two children together, one of whom was the second applicant.
Judge Noko emphasised that burial decisions do not rest solely with the eldest child, noting that the principle of primogeniture no longer applies in this context. He held, “The legal position agreed upon by both parties is that the children of the deceased have the right to decide on burial when there is no will.”
The court ultimately sided with the second applicant and gave weight to the best interests of the minor child, concluding that the deceased should be buried in Cape Town.
The judge added, “I therefore conclude that on behalf of the minor, the deceased should be buried in Cape Town. My decision aligns with the wishes of the second applicant.”
Beyond the children’s views, the court found the deceased's expressed wishes to be compelling in their own right. Judge Noko stated, “The evidence that the deceased informed the second applicant that he wished to be buried in Cape Town was not gainsaid, and it overrides other considerations.”
Practical considerations favour Cape Town burial
The court also took a practical approach, looking beyond the legal arguments to the realities of the deceased’s life. Evidence showed that he had lived and worked in South Africa for decades, and that it was in Cape Town where he had built his family life.
Judge Noko noted that both sides accepted that the deceased had built his life in South Africa and that his children lived in Cape Town. Together, these factors reinforced the conclusion that Cape Town was the appropriate place of burial.
The court also rejected the respondent’s suggestion that any mistake could later be corrected through exhumation, dismissing such a remedy as wholly untenable in the circumstances.
Final order and costs
The court ordered that the applicants’ non-compliance with procedural rules be condoned and directed the respondents to release the deceased’s remains to the applicants, who were authorised to proceed with the burial in Cape Town.
Judge Noko concluded, “I am convinced that a proper case has been made for an order instructing the… respondents to release the mortal remains… to the applicants for burial.”
The second respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of counsel.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
