THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 2021/27860
In the matter between:
ZANELE MINENHLE MNTUNGWA Applicant
and
PRINCESS NOLUTHANDO MARINAH MARIPANE First Respondent
PRESHNEE GOVENDER ATTORNEYS INCORPORATED Second Respondent
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG Third Respondent
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HOME AFFAIRS Fourth Respondent
(1) REPORTABLE: No
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
(3) REVISED: Yes
Date: 18 February 2025
3
This judgment has been delivered by uploading it to the CaseLines digital database of
the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, and by e- mail
to the attorneys of record of the parties. The delivery date and time is 10H00 on 18
February 2025.
JUDGMENT
DU PLESSIS J
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment I handed down
on 4 October 2024, in which I declared that the purported customary marriage between
the first respondent and the deceased was null and void, removed the first respondent
as executrix of the deceased’s estate and appointed Marina Naydenova Attorneys as
executors. The applicant in the leave to appeal (the second respondent in the
application) contends that I erred in my findings on these issues . I refer to the parties
as they were in the application.
[2] I must now determine whether the applicant has demonstrated a reasonable
prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion or whether there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted, as required by
s 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act .
1 The previous test —whether another court might
come to a different conclusion—has been raised to whether another court would do so.
2 I am of the view that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would
come to a different conclusion.
[3] As for setting aside the Master’s decision to appoint the first respondent as
executrix , the procedural irregularities in the Master’s appointment process were so
significant that judicial intervention was warranted, for reasons set out in the judgment .
[4] The applicant challenges the court’s appointment of Marina Naydenova
Attorneys as executors, arguing that this power rests solely with the Master of the High
1 Act 10 of 2013.
2 Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen 2014 JDR 2325.
4
Court. However, this argument ignores the exceptional circumstances of this case.
While courts generally defer to the Master in executor appointments, the exceptional
circumstances of this case —fraud, procedural failures, and a missing executrix —
necessitated the appointment to ensure that the interest of the minor children are
protected.
[5] With regard to the finding whether a valid customary marriage existed between
the first respondent and deceased, The evidence as set out in the judgment supports
the court’s conclusion that there was no customary marriage, as on the evidence
before the court the two core elements as emerged from case law (lobola and the
handing over of the bride) were not met. The multiple, inconsistent and fraudulent
marriage certificates further undermine the first respondent’s argument that they had
a valid customary marriage.
[6] In the result, I am not persuaded that the appeal would have a reasonable
prospect of success.
[7] Order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
____________________________
WJ du Plessis
Judge of the High Cour t, Gauteng,
Johannesburg
For the Applicants:
For the Respondents:
A Vosloo- De Witt instructed by Marina
Naydenova Attorneys
S Mathiba instructed by PGA Inc