- Lobola agreed and partially paid, but the court found this did not create a valid marriage under customary law.
- The judge finds no proof of handover or integration of the woman into the man’s family.
- Failure to call key witnesses and join the civil wife proves fatal to the case.
A woman who approached the High Court in Pretoria seeking a divorce based on an alleged customary marriage has had her claim dismissed, after the court found that the relationship never progressed beyond lobola negotiations and therefore did not result in a legally recognised marriage.
The case centred on events in August 2016, when the man’s family formally approached the woman’s family and negotiated lobola. The families agreed on R40 000, and R18 000 was paid on the day. A lobola letter was drafted and signed, recording the payment, the outstanding balance of R22 000, and an undertaking that a cow would be delivered in future as part of the customary process.
Despite these steps, Judge J Strijdom held that what took place did not meet the legal threshold for a valid customary marriage. The court made it clear that the existence of lobola negotiations, even when partly fulfilled and formally recorded, does not in itself establish that a marriage has been concluded.
Lobola process showed the marriage was incomplete
The judgment places significant weight on the distinction between lobola and a completed customary marriage. Judge Strijdom accepted that negotiations took place and that part payment was made, but emphasised that the legal question was whether the marriage was properly concluded in terms of customary law.
In evaluating this, Judge Strijdom concluded, “The plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving that the marriage was negotiated and entered into or celebrated in accordance with customary law.”
The contents of the lobola letter itself became central to the court’s reasoning. The letter recorded that a substantial portion of the lobola remained unpaid, and that a further ritual involving the delivery and slaughtering of a cow still had to take place.
The court treated this as a critical indicator that the process was incomplete. Evidence showed that the slaughtering of the cow was linked to the joining of the two families, and that further discussions were still expected before that could happen. This, the court found, pointed away from a completed marriage and toward an ongoing process.
No credible proof of handover or integration
The court then examined whether the woman had been formally integrated into the man’s family, which is a central feature of many customary marriages.
The woman testified that she had been welcomed as a makoti and accepted as a daughter-in-law after the negotiations. She relied on this as proof that the marriage had been concluded.
The man and his parents denied this version entirely, stating that no such words were spoken and that no handover or integration took place.
Faced with these competing accounts, Judge Strijdom preferred the man’s version. In assessing his evidence, the judge found, “The defendant made a favourable impression on me as an intelligent witness whose account was truthful and reliable.”
The court continued, “His evidence was credible and free from contradictions and discrepancies concerning the details.”
On that basis, the court rejected the woman’s version and found that there was no convincing proof that she had been formally integrated into the man’s family or that any customary handover had taken place.
Contradictions and missing witnesses weaken her case
The court also found serious problems with the woman’s own evidence. Her testimony was inconsistent and, at times, contradicted by her own witnesses. Judge Strijdom was direct in this assessment. He stated, “The plaintiff did not impress me as a reliable witness.”
The court highlighted multiple contradictions on key aspects of the case, including what happened after the lobola negotiations and whether certain customary practices took place.
More significantly, the woman failed to call crucial witnesses. Her father, who played a central role in the negotiations, did not testify. An aunt who allegedly participated in rituals was also not called, and neither was the person who received the man’s family.
From this, the court drew a clear inference. Judge Strijdom stated, “The only reasonable inference to be drawn is that the father did not consider the plaintiff married to the defendant.”
The court added that the failure to call these witnesses suggested that they “would not corroborate the evidence of the plaintiff.”
Failure to join civil wife renders proceedings defective
The case was further undermined by a fundamental procedural flaw. By the time the matter was before the court, the man had entered into a civil marriage in 2022, yet the woman failed to join his wife in the proceedings.
Judge Strijdom emphasised the legal significance of this omission, holding that any person with a “direct and substantial interest” in the outcome must be joined to the proceedings.
The court made the consequences clear. Judge Strijdom stated, “The practical effect of validating the customary marriage is that the civil marriage of the defendant would be null and void.”
In those circumstances, the absence of the civil wife rendered the proceedings defective and incapable of being properly adjudicated.
No marriage established, and the claim dismissed
After considering the evidence as a whole, the court found that the woman had failed to prove that a valid customary marriage ever came into existence.
The process had reached the stage of negotiation and partial payment of lobola, but had not been completed in accordance with customary law. Without proof of completion, there was no marriage in law.
And without a valid marriage, there was nothing to dissolve. The court dismissed the claim and ordered the woman to pay the costs of the action.
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
