S.M.W NO v J.J.W And Others (13122/2019 ; 8222/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 575 (10 December 2025)

Case Note

S[...] M[...] W[...] N.O. v J[...] J[...] W[...] [NÉE A[...]] and Others
Case No: 13122/2019
Delivered on: 10 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it deals with critical aspects of marriage validity in the context of mental capacity, particularly highlighting how curatorship affects personal agreements. It sets important legal precedents regarding the onus of proof in cases involving individuals who are declared mentally unfit. The judgment not only reaffirms existing legal principles but also emphasizes the responsibilities of parties entering contractual agreements in circumstances involving mental health considerations. The court’s findings shed light on the importance of medical expert testimony in proving mental capacity, which will be relevant in similar future cases.

Cases Cited

• De Villiers v Espach 1958 (3) SA 91 (T)
• Ferreira v Levin; Vryenhoek v Powell 1996 (2) SA 621 (CC)
• Boberg’s Law of Persons and the Family
• Pienaar v Pienaar’s Curator 1930 OPD 171
• Molyneux v Natal Land & Colonization Co Ltd 1905 AC 555 (PC)
• Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike Afrika Bpk v Saayman 1997 (4) SA 302 (SCA)
• Jenkins v SA Boiler Makers, Iron & Steel Workers & Ship Builders Society 1946 WLD 15
• Ideal Trading 199 CC v Polokwane Local Municipality [2023] ZALMPPHC 75

Legislation Cited

Not specified in the judgment.

Rules of Court Cited

Not specified in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case revolves around the validity of a marriage entered into by the late R[...] W[...] S[...] W[...] ("the Deceased") with J[...] J[...] W[...] ("the First Defendant") while the Deceased was under curatorship. The Plaintiff, acting as executor of the deceased's estate, sought a declaration that the marriage was null and void ab initio, asserting the Deceased lacked mental capacity due to cognitive impairments stemming from a stroke and subsequent dementia. The Court evaluated the evidence presented, primarily focused on medical opinions regarding the Deceased's mental state at the time of marriage.

Key Issues

The primary legal issues for determination included:
1. Whether the Deceased possessed the mental capacity to understand and consent to the marriage agreement.
2. The appropriate allocation of costs, including those incurred during urgent applications by the curator bonis concerning the management of the estate and care of the Deceased.

Held

The High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, declaring the marriage between the Deceased and the First Defendant null and void ab initio. The Court determined that the First Defendant failed to prove that the Deceased was of sound mind at the time the marriage was contracted. Furthermore, the First Defendant was ordered to pay costs associated with the action and previous urgent applications.

THE FACTS

The facts relevant to this case reveal that R[...] W[...] suffered a severe stroke in May 2017, which resulted in significant cognitive and behavioral impairments, including vascular dementia. Due to his incapacity, a curator bonis was appointed in September 2017 to oversee his affairs. Despite this, the Deceased entered into a marriage with the First Defendant on 8 June 2018 while still under curatorship. At trial, the First Defendant represented herself and contended that the Deceased was of sound mind during the marriage, although she did not present expert testimony to substantiate her claim.

The Plaintiff obtained medical expert evidence indicating the Deceased was unable to understand the nature of a marriage contract. Experts from both sides concluded that the Deceased was incapable of making informed decisions at the time of marriage. The curator bonis previously filed urgent applications to manage the estate, highlighting issues with the First Defendant’s lack of cooperation.

THE ISSUES

The Court had to decide: a. Whether the Deceased had the mental capacity to comprehend and consent to the marriage agreement.
b. The matter of costs, specifically whether the First Defendant should be held liable for the costs associated with the litigation and the urgent applications initiated by the curator bonis to manage the affairs of the Deceased.

ANALYSIS

The Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, particularly the testimonies of medical experts who assessed the Deceased's mental state. It was determined that, at the time of marriage, the Deceased did not possess the ability to engage in a legally binding contract. The general rule presumes individuals are mentally competent until proven otherwise; however, the Court established that once a person has been declared incapable of managing their affairs, the burden of proof shifts to the party asserting otherwise.

The First Defendant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Deceased was sound of mind at the time of their marriage led the Court to conclude that the marriage was invalid. The final determination underscored the necessity for parties claiming the capacity of individuals under curatorship to provide compelling evidence, which the First Defendant failed to do.

REMEDY

The Court declared the marriage null and void ab initio, effectively annulling all legal obligations associated with the marriage. Additionally, the First Defendant was held personally responsible for the legal costs of the proceedings, including costs from previous urgent applications filed by the curator bonis. This decision not only serves to protect the integrity of marital agreements but also stresses the financial implications of failing to adhere to established legal standards regarding mental capacity.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Several key legal principles were established within this judgment. Primarily, it reinforced the legal understanding that individuals placed under curatorship due to mental incapacity are presumed to lack the ability to enter into legally binding agreements unless the burden of proof is satisfied by the party asserting otherwise. The ruling also illustrated the Court's discretion in awarding costs based on the principle that the successful party is typically entitled to cost recovery. The case further affirms the necessity of expert medical evidence to validate claims regarding mental capacity in contractual scenarios.