The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled against a woman who sought official recognition as the legal wife after 20 years of marriage.

The decision was made after the woman, Nthuseni Christinah Manwadu, appealed a decision made by the Limpopo High Court which recognised Matodzi Joyce Manwadu as the legal wife of Livhuwani Robert Manwadu who is now deceased.

The dispute started after Robert died in February 2017 and both women wanted to claim from his estate, however, only one of them could claim.

The first wife, Joyce, sought relief in the high court and wanted an order declaring her customary marriage with Robert as valid.

As part of her evidence, she submitted an uncertified copy of her ID and an endorsement of the date of marriage. She said the ID was prima facie evidence of the existence of the customary marriage to the deceased, as she was using his surname.

The high court dismissed her application and found that she had not proven the existence of the customary marriage. The court held that the second wife, Christinah and the deceased had been married by civil law and that they had executed a joint will and testament.

Unhappy with the decision, Joyce appealed it, and the court set aside the previous ruling and declared Christinah's marriage null and void.

Disenchanted, Christinah also challenged the outcome and sought relief at the SCA.

At the SCA, the court heard evidence from the first wife who met the deceased in 1978 when she was still in high school.

She became pregnant the same year they met, and the deceased did not hesitate to admit that he was the father and made it known that he was willing to marry her.

She was subsequently sent to the deceased’s family and an amount of R600 was negotiated as lobola and it was paid by the deceased’s family to her father.

In 1982, she got pregnant with her second child, and it was believed the deceased was the father.

The deceased then started working in 1984 and he maintained her and the children.

A third child was born in January 1995. However, he denied paternity of the children and stopped supporting them.

In 2004, the two oldest children approached the maintenance court claiming maintenance from the deceased for tertiary education. The deceased denied that he was the father of any of the children.

Consequently, paternity tests were ordered to prove whether he was the father, and it was confirmed that he was not the father of the two children.

Despite these results, Joyce insisted under oath that the deceased was the father, even in documents submitted in court, she mentioned the deceased as the father.

DNA tests were not performed on the third child as there was no maintenance claim for her.

For the third child's paternity, she submitted a copy of a ‘next of kin’ affidavit as proof that the third child belonged to the deceased.

Once again, the ‘next of kin’ affidavit was an uncertified copy, and its authenticity could not be proven. She also did not disclose how she came to be in possession of the document.

She said before breaking up with the deceased, they lived together in a house in Thohoyandou, but the property was under the deceased.

In 1996, she discovered that the deceased was cheating on her with the second wife, Christinah, and she left their home and moved back to her parental home.

She said a meeting was held to resolve their issues, but the deceased had already moved in with Christinah. She then moved in with her mother-in-law for 10 years until she found her own house where she lived with her children.

A confirmatory affidavit of the deceased’s mother was attached for both Joyce and Christinah, however, the mother-in-law later withdrew both affidavits.

Furthermore, Joyce said she and the deceased registered their customary marriage at the Thohoyandou Magistrate’s Office in 1993. She could not produce the registration certificate claiming it was lost, and she could not locate it.

She said she approached the Department of Home Affairs in Makwarela to obtain a duplicate, but she was informed that such information was with the magistrate’s office. However, they also could not provide her with the certificate.

She argued that changing her surname and getting a new ID in 1993 was proof enough that she was already married.

Meanwhile, Christinah argued that she had been married to the deceased for at least 20 years, and they had four children. She said Joyce never challenged their marriage until she heard about her husband's death.

She produced a certified copy of their marriage certificate.

She also confirmed that the house she lived in with the deceased was registered under his name alone and she never contributed towards it.

She said her sister-in-law told her that the deceased was never married to Joyce and they never had children together as DNA proved that the children were not his.

SCA judge Tati Makgoka presided over the matter and said Christinah might have produced a marriage certificate, but she failed to dispute Joyce's ID document and the endorsement of the date of marriage.

Judge Makgoka agreed with the high court judge who said the ID document was prima facie evidence that a valid marriage existed between Joyce and the deceased.

"This characterisation of the document is to my mind, undoubtedly correct. It reflects the proper approach to the evaluation of evidence," said Makgoka.

Makgoka asked what the first wife's marital status was and what does it convey.

He said it mentions her ID number, followed by the full names of both parties, and the inscription: ‘Married: 1979-03-13'.

"Any objective and reasonable person would understand from the document that: (a) the persons mentioned in the document (Joyce and the deceased) were married to each other on the date mentioned, March 13, 1979, and (b) as a result, Joyce, as the wife, adopted the surname of the deceased."

The appeal was dismissed, and Joyce was recognised as the legal wife.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL