The Disputed Customary Marriage: A Clash of Traditions and Testimonies
In N.V.M v D.S.R (1327/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 9 (7 February 2025), the Northern Cape Division of the High Court was tasked with resolving a fundamental dispute concerning the existence of a valid customary marriage between the plaintiff, Ms. N.V.M, and the defendant, Mr. D.S.R. This case encapsulates the ongoing tension between traditional African customary law and the evolving jurisprudence surrounding the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (ROCMA), which governs the validity of such unions. At its core, the dispute revolved around whether the requisite elements for a customary marriage had been met, with the parties presenting starkly divergent versions of events.
The plaintiff contended that she and the defendant had entered into a valid customary marriage on 17 April 2010, following the completion of lobola negotiations. She relied on a written lobola letter, corroborated by her witnesses, as evidence of the agreement reached between the families. Furthermore, she asserted that her integration into the defendant’s family had already commenced prior to the formal lobola discussions, as she had been ceremoniously welcomed into the defendant’s home in Lesotho, given a traditional name, and subjected to rituals signifying her acceptance as a makoti (bride).
Conversely, the defendant’s version of events was entirely different. He maintained that no valid customary marriage had taken place, arguing that the purported lobola negotiations were never concluded because the plaintiff’s family allegedly postponed them due to cultural requirements following a miscarriage. He further denied the authenticity of the lobola letter, claiming it was fraudulent and had not been signed by his father, a key representative in the negotiations. His case rested on the argument that, in the absence of complete adherence to specific Sotho marriage customs—including the full transfer of the bride to his family—no legally binding customary marriage could have been established.
The court was therefore confronted with conflicting narratives regarding both the substantive requirements of a customary marriage under ROCMA and the role of cultural practices in determining the validity of such unions. The plaintiff’s reliance on traditional integration rituals and documentary evidence of lobola negotiations stood in contrast to the defendant’s strict insistence that his family had never recognised the plaintiff as his wife under Sotho custom. As the case unfolded, the court had to navigate these intricate cultural and legal complexities, ultimately determining whether the requirements for a valid customary marriage had indeed been satisfied.
Lobola Negotiations and the Question of a Valid Customary Union
Central to the dispute in N.V.M v D.S.R was the interpretation of lobola negotiations and their legal significance under ROCMA. The plaintiff asserted that a formal lobola agreement had been concluded between the families on 17 April 2010, evidenced by a written lobola letter signed by both parties’ representatives. According to her, the agreement stipulated a total lobola payment of twelve cows, equating to R12,000, with an initial R5,000 paid on the day of negotiations and the balance to be settled at a later date. The document, which was translated into English for the court, recorded the consensus between the families, signifying the establishment of a customary marriage.
The defendant, however, denied the validity of the lobola agreement, contending that the meeting on 17 April 2010 had not culminated in an actual agreement but had instead been postponed due to a cultural prerequisite—a cleansing ceremony required following the plaintiff’s miscarriage. He further argued that the R5,000 payment had been made exclusively for this ritual rather than as a lobola installment. A crucial element of his defence was the alleged forgery of the lobola letter, as he claimed that his father’s signature was falsified and that no such agreement had been reached.
In assessing the credibility of these competing claims, the court had to determine whether the written lobola letter constituted conclusive proof of a customary marriage or whether, as the defendant alleged, it was a fabricated document. The court also had to evaluate whether partial payment of lobola sufficed to establish a marriage under ROCMA, particularly given that some traditions require full payment before a marriage is considered complete. The legal question of whether customary law evolves to accommodate modern practices—such as written contracts in lieu of oral agreements—was also pivotal to the court’s reasoning.
The issue was further complicated by conflicting testimonies regarding the alleged postponement. While the plaintiff and her witnesses maintained that lobola had been agreed upon and partially paid, the defendant and his witnesses insisted that no valid agreement had been reached, as the negotiations had been interrupted by the revelation of the plaintiff’s prior miscarriage. The defendant’s father testified that the payment made on 17 April 2010 was never intended as part of the lobola but was instead a contribution towards a necessary cleansing ceremony before any marriage discussions could proceed. The defendant further claimed that cultural protocol dictated that until the cleansing was completed, no negotiations or agreements could take place, and therefore, the existence of the lobola letter was fraudulent.
To assess the validity of these claims, the court scrutinised the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by both parties. The plaintiff’s version was corroborated by a signed lobola letter, which explicitly recorded the terms of the agreement, including the number of cattle and the structured payment plan. The defendant, on the other hand, could not provide any written proof to support his assertion that the meeting was postponed or that the R5,000 payment was designated for a cleansing ritual rather than lobola. His claim of forgery was further weakened by his failure to present expert testimony challenging the authenticity of the signatures on the document.
The legal significance of partial lobola payment was another key issue the court had to resolve. The defendant argued that because the full lobola had not yet been paid, no binding customary marriage could exist. However, the court rejected this claim, drawing on precedent such as Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others, which held that the payment of lobola—even if incomplete—coupled with family consensus and cultural integration, could suffice to establish a valid marriage under ROCMA. The court affirmed that while full lobola payment might be a requirement in certain customs, South African law does not mandate it as a strict legal necessity for a valid customary marriage.
Another decisive factor was the inconsistency in the defendant’s evidence. While he initially asserted that his family had refused to engage in lobola negotiations due to the plaintiff’s miscarriage, his testimony later contradicted this claim when he admitted that he had previously discussed lobola amounts with the plaintiff. His father’s version of events was also contradictory, as he could not provide a coherent explanation for why the family had never returned to finalise negotiations if, as they claimed, the marriage discussions had only been postponed. The lack of follow-up on the purported cleansing ceremony further cast doubt on the defendant’s narrative.
The court ultimately found that the evidence weighed in favour of the plaintiff. The existence of a written lobola letter, the partial payment made, and the absence of any substantial proof supporting the defendant’s claims of postponement or forgery all pointed towards a valid customary marriage having been concluded. By rejecting the argument that full lobola payment and additional rituals were absolute legal requirements, the court reaffirmed the principle that customary law is a living, evolving system that must be interpreted in accordance with modern legal realities.
The Role of Cultural Rituals in Establishing a Customary Marriage
In resolving the dispute in N.V.M v D.S.R, the court had to consider the significance of cultural rituals in determining the existence of a valid customary marriage. One of the defendant’s key arguments was that the absence of certain post-lobola ceremonies—such as the formal handing over of the bride and specific Sotho marriage customs—meant that no marriage had come into existence. He maintained that, in his culture, even if lobola negotiations had taken place and partial payment had been made, a customary marriage could not be valid without the completion of these additional rituals.
This argument placed the court in the position of assessing the rigidity of cultural practices within the framework of ROCMA. While the Act mandates that a customary marriage must be “negotiated and entered into or celebrated in accordance with customary law,” it does not expressly require any specific rituals beyond the agreement and consent of the spouses. The defendant relied on precedent suggesting that the handing over of the bride is an integral part of customary marriage, pointing to cases such as Fanti v Boto and Others 2008 (5) SA 405 (C) and Rasello v Chali and Others [2013] SAFSHC 182 (24 October 2013), which had emphasised the importance of this practice.
However, the plaintiff countered this argument by relying on Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others 2020(1) SA 41 (SCA), where the Supreme Court of Appeal recognised that cultural practices, including the handing over of the bride, are not absolute requirements and may be waived by agreement or evolving customary practices. She contended that her ceremonial acceptance into the defendant’s family, along with the payment of lobola, was sufficient to constitute a valid customary marriage.
The defendant’s position was further undermined by inconsistencies in his testimony regarding these alleged essential rituals. While he and his father insisted that the handing over had not occurred, they failed to provide a coherent explanation for why the plaintiff had been given a traditional name and participated in cultural celebrations within the defendant’s family. The court had to weigh these contradictions against the broader question of whether adherence to rigid customary practices remains a decisive factor in establishing a legally recognised marriage under modern South African law.
Legal Analysis: Customary Marriage under the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998
The central legal question before the court in N.V.M v D.S.R was whether the parties had satisfied the requirements for a valid customary marriage under ROCMA, particularly section 3(1), which sets out the essential elements for validity. The Act requires that (i) both parties must be over the age of 18, (ii) they must both consent to be married under customary law, and (iii) the marriage must be “negotiated and entered into or celebrated in accordance with customary law.” The dispute turned on the interpretation of the third requirement—whether the marriage had been concluded in a manner consistent with the relevant customary practices.
The defendant sought to rely on a strict interpretation of customary law, arguing that compliance with all traditional rituals, including full lobola payment and the bride’s formal transfer, was a prerequisite for a legally recognised marriage. In doing so, he aligned his defence with earlier judicial pronouncements such as those in Fanti v Boto and Others, which held that the formal handing over of the bride was an indispensable step in the customary marriage process. However, the plaintiff advanced a more flexible interpretation, supported by more recent case law, particularly Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others, in which the Supreme Court of Appeal recognised that customary law evolves and that the omission of a specific ritual does not necessarily invalidate a marriage if the essential requirements are met.
The court also considered the broader jurisprudential trend that favours a contextual approach to customary law, as seen in Maropane v Southon (755/2012) [2014] ZASCA 76 (29 May 2014), where it was affirmed that indigenous law is dynamic and adapts to changing social conditions. This approach was particularly relevant in assessing the nature of the lobola agreement in this case, which was reduced to writing—something that, while not a traditional requirement, has become a modern adaptation of customary marriage practices.
By examining the evolving judicial stance on the interpretation of ROCMA, the court had to determine whether a formal lobola agreement, partial payment, and cultural integration were sufficient indicators of a valid marriage or whether, as the defendant claimed, the absence of post-lobola rituals invalidated the union. The outcome of this assessment would not only resolve the dispute between the parties but also contribute to the ongoing legal discourse on the intersection of formal legislation and living customary law.
Court’s Decision: Upholding the Validity of the Customary Marriage
In reaching its decision in N.V.M v D.S.R, the court was required to assess the credibility of the parties, the weight of the documentary evidence, and the evolving principles of customary law within the framework of ROCMA. The plaintiff’s version of events was largely corroborated by documentary proof, including the lobola letter and photographic evidence of her participation in traditional ceremonies. Furthermore, her testimony remained consistent under cross-examination, reinforcing the plausibility of her claim that a valid customary marriage had been entered into.
The defendant, on the other hand, faced significant hurdles in establishing his defence. His denial of the lobola agreement was not only contradicted by the written lobola letter but also undermined by his admission that an amount of R5,000 had indeed been paid to the plaintiff’s family. His argument that this payment was exclusively for a cleansing ritual was viewed with skepticism, particularly in light of his failure to follow up on whether such a ceremony had ever been conducted. Additionally, the defendant’s attempts to discredit the authenticity of the lobola letter were unsuccessful, as he did not provide expert evidence to substantiate his claim of forgery.
The court found itself guided by the principles established in Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others, which recognised that adherence to rigid customary practices must be assessed in light of evolving social norms. In this context, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the absence of specific post-lobola rituals invalidated the marriage, holding that constructive compliance with customary practices was sufficient to satisfy the legal requirements. The fact that the plaintiff had lived with the defendant as his wife for several years, had borne his children, and had been recognised as his spouse by both families was considered strong evidence of the existence of a legally binding customary marriage.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that a valid customary marriage had been concluded between the parties. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the action, reinforcing the principle that disputes over customary marriages must be adjudicated in accordance with the prevailing legal framework rather than subjective interpretations of tradition. This decision not only resolved the dispute between the parties but also reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to interpreting customary law in a manner that aligns with contemporary realities and the constitutional imperative of legal certainty.
Questions and Answers
What was the central legal issue in N.V.M v D.S.R?
The primary legal issue in this case was whether a valid customary marriage existed between the plaintiff and the defendant under the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (ROCMA). The court had to determine whether the marriage had been “negotiated and entered into or celebrated in accordance with customary law,” as required by section 3(1)(b) of the Act.
How did the court interpret the requirement that a customary marriage must be “entered into or celebrated in accordance with customary law”?
The court adopted a flexible approach, recognising that customary law is not static but evolves with societal changes. It referred to Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others, where the Supreme Court of Appeal held that strict adherence to all traditional rituals is not always necessary for a customary marriage to be valid, provided the essential requirements, such as agreement between the families and lobola negotiations, are satisfied.
What was the significance of the lobola agreement in this case?
The lobola agreement played a crucial role in proving that a customary marriage had been concluded. The plaintiff presented a signed lobola letter as evidence that the families had reached an agreement regarding the marriage, including the number of cattle and the payment structure. The court found that this document supported the plaintiff’s claim that a valid marriage had been entered into.
Did the defendant successfully challenge the authenticity of the lobola letter?
No, the defendant failed to provide convincing evidence that the lobola letter was a forgery. He did not produce an expert witness to dispute the authenticity of the signatures or the document itself. The court, therefore, accepted the lobola letter as valid evidence that an agreement had been reached between the families.
Was the full payment of lobola required for the marriage to be valid?
The court confirmed that full payment of lobola is not a prerequisite for a valid customary marriage under ROCMA. Partial payment, coupled with the agreement between the families, was deemed sufficient to establish the existence of a valid marriage. This position aligns with earlier case law, such as Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others, which acknowledged that the non-payment of the full lobola amount does not automatically invalidate a customary marriage.
What role did cultural rituals play in the court’s decision?
The court considered the importance of cultural rituals but did not treat them as absolute requirements. The defendant argued that the absence of a formal handing over of the bride and other traditional practices rendered the marriage invalid. However, the court relied on Maropane v Southon, which affirmed that customary law is dynamic, and on Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others, which held that certain rituals, including the handing over of the bride, could be waived by the families.
Did the court find that the cleansing ceremony was necessary for the marriage to be valid?
No, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that a cleansing ceremony was a prerequisite for the marriage. The plaintiff’s witness testified that her culture did not require such a ceremony, and there was no evidence that the families had agreed to postpone lobola negotiations until after a cleansing ritual. The court found it improbable that the defendant’s family would have handed over R5,000 for a cleansing ceremony without following up on whether it had been performed.
How did the court assess the credibility of the witnesses?
The court found the plaintiff and her witnesses to be credible and consistent, whereas the defendant and his witnesses were evasive and contradictory. The inconsistencies in the defendant’s testimony, particularly regarding the purpose of the R5,000 payment and the alleged postponement of lobola negotiations, undermined his credibility.
How did the court reconcile the absence of a formal handing over of the bride with the requirements of ROCMA?
The court applied the reasoning in Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others, which established that the handing over of the bride is not an absolute requirement and may be waived by agreement or evolving customs. The court found that the plaintiff had been integrated into the defendant’s family through traditional ceremonies, including being given a traditional name, which demonstrated that she was regarded as his wife.
What impact did the parties’ cohabitation have on the court’s ruling?
The fact that the parties lived together as husband and wife for several years after the alleged lobola negotiations was a significant factor in the court’s finding. The court considered this as further proof that both families regarded the plaintiff as the defendant’s wife, reinforcing the conclusion that a valid customary marriage had been entered into.
What legal principles did the court apply in rejecting the defendant’s argument that the marriage was invalid?
The court relied on Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others to confirm that customary law is living and adaptable. It also applied the principles in Maropane v Southon, which emphasised the need for courts to recognise the evolving nature of indigenous law. The court dismissed the rigid interpretation of customary law advanced by the defendant, holding that constructive compliance with the requirements of ROCMA was sufficient.
What did the court say about the interaction between customary law and written contracts?
The court acknowledged that written agreements, such as the lobola letter, are becoming more common in customary marriages and should not be dismissed merely because they do not conform to traditional oral agreements. This approach aligns with the broader principle in Mbungela and Another v Mkabi and Others that customary law must evolve to accommodate contemporary realities.
Why did the court order the defendant to pay the costs of the action?
The court found that the defendant’s opposition to the divorce was unfounded and based on a misrepresentation of customary law. His attempt to deny the existence of the marriage, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, was deemed an abuse of legal process, warranting an adverse cost order.
What precedent does this case set for future customary marriage disputes?
This case reinforces the judicial trend of recognising the evolving nature of customary law and affirms that strict adherence to all traditional rituals is not necessary for a valid customary marriage. It confirms that written lobola agreements, partial lobola payments, and cultural integration can be sufficient to establish a marriage under ROCMA. It also highlights the importance of documentary evidence in proving the existence of a customary marriage in cases where one party later disputes its validity.
How does this case contribute to the broader development of customary marriage jurisprudence?
The decision in N.V.M v D.S.R aligns with recent case law that prioritises a practical and flexible interpretation of customary marriage requirements. By affirming that constructive compliance with customary practices can be sufficient, the judgment helps to clarify the legal framework governing customary marriages in South Africa. It also underscores the importance of written evidence in resolving disputes over whether a customary marriage exists, contributing to greater legal certainty in such matters.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: