Mahanetsa v Mahanetsa and Others (CIV/APN 305 of 92) [1994] LSCA 113 (28 June 1994)

C I V / A P N / 3 0 5 / 92 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the m a t t er b e t w e e n: M A L I P O L E LO L Y L L I AN M A H A N E T SA A p p l i c a nt vs K O M E L LO M A H A N E T SA A T T O R N EY G E N E R AL T HE C O M M I S S I O N ER ( R . L . D . F .) 1st R e s p o n d e nt 2nd R e s p o n d e nt 3rd R e s p o n d e nt J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n o u r a b le Mr. J u s t i ce T. M o n a p a t hi on the 2 8 th day of J u ne 1 9 94 T he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt is the o n ly o ne w ho o p p o s es the p r a y e rs for d e c l a r i ng the A p p l i c a nt the s o le w i d ow of the late P a li Paul M a h a n e t s a, that all t e r m i n al b e n e f i ts of the e s t a te of the l a te P a li Paul M a h a n e t sa be paid to the A p p l i c a nt and d i r e c t i ng the F i r st R e s p o n d e nt to d e s i st f o r t h w i th from i n t e r f e r i ng in any way w i th the e s t a te of the l a te Pali Paul M a h a n e t s a. One c l e ar i n d i c a t i on of w h at w o u ld e x e r c i se the m i nd of the C o u rt is this s t a t e m e nt c o n t a i n ed in p a r a g r a ph four of the A p p l i c a n t 's R e p l y i ng A f f i d a v it w h i ch g o e s: -2- " It is s i g n i f i c a nt that the 1st R e s p o n d e nt does not want to a c k n o w l e d ge me e v en as he sees a copy of the o f f i c i al m a r r i a ge c e r t i f i c a t e. 1st R e s p o n d e nt has not o b t a i n ed the a f f i d a v it of the said M O T S E L I SI nor has he a n n e x ed any m a r r i a ge c e r t i f i c a te in s u p p o rt of his a l l e g a t i o ns w h i ch I s u b m it are false and 1st r e s p o n d e nt is put to the p r o of t h e r e o f ." (my u n d e r l i n i n g) It is i m p o r t a nt to n o te that in s u p p o rt of the e x i s t e n ce and the v a l i d i ty of the A p p l i c a n t 's m a r r i a ge to the late Pali Paul M a h a n e t sa the A p p l i c a nt has o b t a i n ed the a f f i d a v it of G. T s e e t sa who was p r e s e nt and a w i t n e ss to the said m a r r i a ge of the A p p l i c a nt and the d e c e a s e d. On the 6th June 1994 w h en the m a t t er w as p l a c ed b e f o re me Mr. M o l e te for the First R e s p o n d e nt i n d i c a t ed that p e r h a ps the m a t t er could not be dealt w i th on the p a p e rs w i t h o ut the aid of viva/a voce e v i d e n c e. Mr. M a t h a f e ng for the A p p l i c a nt a l so agreed with Mr. M o l e t e 'x o b s e r v a t i o n. No a s p e ct or i s s ue of the d i s p u te w as s p e l l ed out as r e q u i r i ng v e n t i l a t i on by way of viva v o ce e v i d e n c e. It w as on that n o te that the m a t t er w as p o s t p o n ed to the 8th J u n e, 1 9 9 4. On the 8th June 1994 C o u n s e ls a p p e a r ed as b e f o r e. The m a t t er could not p r o c e ed for the r e a s on of being c r o w d ed out by -3- o t h er m a t t e r s. H ut t h en it w as c l e ar t h at t he p a r t i es w e re not r e a dy to b r i ng in e v i d e n ce as a g r e ed p r e v i o u s l y. I t h e re a nd t h en i n d i c a t ed to t he C o u n s e ls t h at q u e s t i on of t he A p p l i c a n t 's m a r r i a ge to the d e c e a s ed P A LI P A UL M A H A N E T SA w as t he c e n t r al i s s ue to t he r e s o l u t i on of the d i s p u t e. It d id n ot m a t t er at t h at s t a g e, in my j u d g m e n t, w h at the p r o b a b i l i t i es w e re on the o t h er i s s u es but t he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt h ad to s a t i s fy me t h at the m a r r i a ge of t he A p p l i c a nt to t he d e c e a s ed by c i v il r i t es on 1 3 th S e p t e m b er 1 9 82 (as b o rn out by an a n n e x ed c o py of t he m a r r i a ge c e r t i f i c a t e) did n ot e x i st or w as a n u l l i t y. ( s ee s e c t i on 35 of M a r r i a ge A ct N o, 10 of 1 9 74 and the c o m m e n ts of t he l e a r n ed a u t h or D. Z e f f e rt in the 4 th e d i t i on of S o u th A f r i c an L aw of E v i d e n ce at p a ge 6 20 u n d er s e c t i on 2 (a) p r o of of m a r r i a ge g e n e r a l l y ), I a l so o r d e r ed t h at M r. M o l e te (if he so w i s h e d) s h o u ld f i le a d d i t i o n al a f f i d a v i ts on a ny q u e s t i o n, i n c l u d i ng t h e se o n es that c a me o ut in t he F i r st R e s p o n d e n t 's A f f i d a v i t. T he q u e s t i o ns w e re f i r s t l y, that the d e c e a s ed h ad b e en m a r r i ed to o ne M o t s e l i si M a h a n e t sa ( b o rn K o e s h e) and s e c o n d ly t h at " to t he b e st of my k n o w l e d ge and b e l i ef t he A p p l i c a nt is M a d a n i el S h a ta and d a u g h t e r - i n - l aw of D a n i el S h a ta of Q a c h a 's N ek w h om he k n ew p e r s o n a l l y ," as s t a t ed by the F i r st R e s p o n d e n t. T he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt is t he d e c e a s e d 's f a t h e r. It is i m p o r t a nt to n o te t h at at no t i me w as the e v i d e n ce of M o t s e l i si M a h a n e t sa ( t he a l l e g ed o t h er w i fe of t he d e c e a s e d) m a de -4- a v a i l a b l e. F u r t h e r m o r e, nothing was brought forward of the A p p l i c a n t 's r e l a t i o n s h ip with the Shata family except what was later revealed in an Order of Court to be referred to later in the j u d g m e n t. This is important because the s u g g e s t i on had been made of the p o s s i b i l i ty of the A p p l i c a nt being married to the Shata family and the M a h a n e t sa family probably at the same time. Equally important would have been an answer as to when was the A p p l i c a nt married to this member of the Shata family w h o se name had not been mentioned in the First R e s p o n d e n t 's a f f i d a v i t. If the A p p l i c a nt was indeed married to a member of the Shata family and if such m a r r i a ge proceeded this one to the deceased Paul Pali M a h a n e t sa it meant that the A p p l i c a nt has b e en engaged in p o l y a n d ry and that this m a r r i a ge to Pali Paul M a h a n e t sa would be null and void. (See section 2 9 ( 1) of M a r r i a ge Act N o, 10 of 1974 and learned author (section 29 (1) of M a r r i a ge Act No. 10 of 1974 and learned author (as he then w a s) W. C. M, Maqutu in c o n t e m p o r a ry Family law of Lesotho on pages 94-95 under 9.4 p o l y a n d r y) But then the Court Order in case number C I V / T / 2 0 6 / 80 e v e n t u a l ly answered most of the q u e s t i o n s. It was in the above c i r c u m s t a n c es that on the morning of the 27th June 1994 despite the p r o t e s t a t i on of Mr. M a t h a f e ng for the A p p l i c a n t, I again adjourned the matter to the a f t e r n o o n. I had h o p e d, in all f a i r n e s s, that there would be some e v i d e n ce in support of the other aspects or issues which would amount to a -5- d e f e n ce in favour of the First R e s p o n d e n t. It is s i g n i f i c a nt to note that at that j u n c t u re M r. M o l e te had a l r e a dy c o n c e d ed that he had failed to find anything that could i n v a l i d a te the A p p l i c a n t 's said civil m a r r i a g e. A n y t h i ng that came near to being a m a t t er of interest was an order of Court in case n u m b er C I V / T / 2 0 6 / 80 being in the m a t t er b e t w e en M o r o n g oe A l b e r t i na Shata (born M o h a p i) a g a i n st Victor Felleng S h a t a. The order was issued by the Chief J u s t i ce Mr. T. S. Cotran (as he then w a s) t h a t: " 1, An order c o n d o n i ng P l a i n t i f f 's a d u l t e r y, be and is hereby c o n d o n e d. 2. (a) That (a) and (b) is h e r e by g r a n t e d; (b) P l a i n t i ff is a w a r d ed c u s t o dy of the m i n or c h i l d r en of the m a r r i a g e; (c) D e f e n d a nt is ordered to m a i n t a in c h i l d r en of the m a r r i a ge at the rate of R 1 5 . 00 per child per m o n t h; (d) D e f e n d a nt f o r f e i ts all b e n e f i ts a r i s i ng out of the m a r r i a g e; (e) Costs of suit awarded to P l a i n t i f f ." -6- T h is O r d er of C o u rt w as e x h i b i t ed l a t er in the a f t e r n o o n. O ne of the p r a y e rs g r a n t ed had b e en for t he d i s s o l u t i on of the p a r t i e s' m a r r i a g e. It is c l e ar that t he o r d er w as m a de q u i te b e f o re the 1 3 th S e p t e m b er 1 9 8 2, w h en on the m e n t i o n ed d a te t he A p p l i c a nt and the l a te Paul P a li M a h a n e t sa c o n t r a c t ed t h e ir m a r r i a g e. T he d i s s o l v ed m a r r i a ge c o u ld n ot h a ve a ny e f f e ct on t he A p p l i c a n t 's m a r r i a ge w i th P a ul P a li M a h a n e t s a. T h is is e v en a s s u m i ng that the A p p l i c a nt is in fact M O R O N G OE A L B E R T I NA S H A T A. In the a b s e n ce of a ny e v i d e n ce to d i s p r o ve t he s a l i e nt f a c ts e n t i t l i ng the A p p l i c a nt to the r e l i ef s o u g h t, t he F i r st R e s p o n d e n t 's C o u n s el c o n c e d e d, m o st w i s e l y, that he c o u ld not c a r ry the m a t t er any f u r t h e r, I t h e r e f o re f o u nd for the A p p l i c a nt on the b a l a n ce of p r o b a b i l i t i e s, In t h is d e c i s i on I h a ve c o n s i d e r ed t h is a r r ay of u n c o n t r o v e r t ed f a c ts and all the c i r c u m s t a n c es of the c a s e, w h i ch s h ow in a w ay that l e a v es no d o u b t, that the d e c e a s ed w as A p p l i c a n t 's h u s b a nd by l a w, (see S e l a m o l e le vs M a k h a do 1 9 8 8 ( 2) SA 3 72 at 3 7 5 D - E) I m a de the o r d e rs t h a t: ( a) T he A p p l i c a nt is d e c l a r ed the s o le w i d ow of the l a te P a li P a ul M a h a n e t s a. ( b) T he T h i rd R e s p o n d e nt is d i r e c t ed to pay all the t e r m i n al b e n e f i ts of t he l a te P a ul P a li M a h a n e t sa to t he A p p l i c a n t, -7- ( c) T he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt is d i r e c t ed f o r t h w i th to d e s i st in a n y w ay f r om i n t e r f e r i ng w i th t he e s t a te of t he l a te P A LI P A UL M A H A N E T S A. ( d) E a ch p a r ty s h a ll p ay i ts o wn c o s t s. T. M O N A P A T HI JUDGE 28th June, 1994 For the Applicant : Mr. Mathafeng For the 1st Respondent : Mr. Molete