• Law Reports
  • Lebea v Seromo (2025/030885) [2025] ZAGPJHC 766 (5 …

Lebea v Seromo (2025/030885) [2025] ZAGPJHC 766 (5 August 2025)

40 Reportability
Family Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Children's Law — Parental rights — Application for change of minor child's surname — Dispute over payment of lebola not relevant to surname change — Applicant's parental rights acknowledged — Court satisfied that requirements of Section 21 of the Children's Act met — Order for change of surname granted despite Respondent's dissatisfaction with draft order.

Comprehensive Summary

Case Note


MAMATSHEU GERRISON LEBEA v LUCKY PORTIA SEROMO

Case Number: 2025-030885

Date of Judgment: 8 August 2025


Reportability


This case is reportable due to its implications regarding the interpretation of customary law in relation to parental rights and responsibilities, particularly in the context of the Children’s Act. The court's decision addresses the complexities surrounding the acknowledgment of customary marriages and the associated obligations, which may serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future.


Cases Cited



  • Children's Act 38 of 2005

  • Mthembu v Letsela and Another 2000 (3) SA 867 (SCA)


Legislation Cited



  • Children’s Act 38 of 2005


Rules of Court Cited



  • None cited.


HEADNOTE


Summary


The case involves an application by Mamatsheu Gerrison Lebea for the amendment of his minor child's birth registration and surname. The Respondent, Lucky Portia Seromo, raised concerns regarding the Applicant's statements about the payment of lebola, which he denied in full. The court ultimately found that the issues surrounding the payment of lebola were not relevant to the matter at hand, which focused on the child's surname and registration.


Key Issues


The key legal issues addressed in this case include the validity of customary marriage claims, the implications of lebola payment on parental rights, and the court's authority to amend a child's birth registration under the Children’s Act.


Held


The court held that the Applicant met the requirements set out in the Children’s Act to amend the birth registration and surname of the minor child, despite the Respondent's dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the draft order.


THE FACTS


The matter was initially called on 5 August 2025, with the Applicant represented by Adv Rourke and the Respondent appearing in person. The Respondent expressed concerns regarding the truthfulness of statements made by the Applicant in his founding affidavit, particularly regarding the payment of lebola. After discussions, the court scheduled a follow-up hearing for 7 August 2025 to address these concerns. However, the Respondent remained dissatisfied with the draft order, specifically regarding the Applicant's denial of full lebola payment.


THE ISSUES


The court had to decide whether the Applicant's denial of full lebola payment affected his parental rights and responsibilities, and whether the court could grant the relief sought regarding the amendment of the minor child's birth registration and surname.


ANALYSIS


The court analyzed the relevance of the lebola payment to the application at hand. It concluded that the determination of whether the Applicant had fully paid lebola was not pertinent to the issue of changing the child's surname or amending the birth registration. The court emphasized that the Applicant's parental rights were not in dispute, and he satisfied the requirements of the Children’s Act for the relief sought.


REMEDY


The court ordered the amendment of the minor child's birth registration and surname as requested by the Applicant, despite the Respondent's concerns regarding the lebola payment.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


The case establishes that the payment of lebola, while significant in customary law, does not necessarily impact the legal rights of a parent in matters concerning the registration and naming of a child under the Children’s Act. The court affirmed its authority to grant relief based on the best interests of the child, independent of disputes over customary marriage obligations.

1

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA



IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG


Case Number: 2025-030885








In the matter between:

MAMATSHEU GERRISON LEBEA Applicant
and

LUCKY PORTIA SEROMO Respondent


JUDGMENT
Nieuwoudt, AJ
[1] The matter was initially called on 5 August 2025 with Adv Rourke appearing for
the Applicant and the Respondent in person.
[2] From my discussion with the Applicant’s counsel and the Respondent it was clear
that the relief sought was not opposed by the Respondent, but the Respondent
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
______________ _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE

2

has some concerns about some statements made by the Applicant in his
founding affidavit which she was of the opinion were not truthful.
[3] I asked Adv Rourke to discuss with the Respondent the proposed draft order and
adapt it to address her concerns. The court then stood the matter down to 7
August 2025 at 14h00 for the draft order to be made an order of court.
[4] When the matter was called on the 7 th of August 2025 the court was informed
that the Respondent was not satisfied with the dr aft order and more specifically
paragraphs 4, 7, 8 and 9. The court then rolled the matter over to 8 August 2025
to be heard virtually.
[5] On the 8th of August 2025 Adv Rourke and the Respondent in person appeared
again. The court specifically requested the Respondent to address the court on
paragraph 4 of the draft order which she was still not happy with. In short, her
discontent is with the fact that the Applicant is denying paying the lebola in full.
He admits to paying the damages for the minor child in question but denies
paying the lebola in full.
[6] Adv Rourke submitted that the Applicant is not willing to admit to that as he
denies that the Re spondent and him were married in terms of Customary Law.
He is therefore not willing to admit to paying lebola in full.
[7] The Court agreed with Adv Rourke that the full payment of lebola or not is not
relevant for the matter before court, i.e. the changing of the minor child’s surname
and amending the birth registration of the minor child.
[8] Although the Applicant’s parental rights and responsibilities are not in dispute, I
am satisfied that he meets the requirements of Section 21 of the Children’s Act,
Act 38 of 2005 read with Section 26 of the Children's Act which does form part
of this application and that the Court can give the relief sought by the Applicant.
[9] I note the Respondent’s dissatisfaction with paragraph 4 of the draft order, but I
am not convinced that her dissatisfaction prohibits me from making the order

am not convinced that her dissatisfaction prohibits me from making the order
sought by the Applicant.

1

Date of Hearing: 5 August 2025
Date of Judgment: 8 August 2025

Appearances:

For the Applicant: Adv M Rourke
Instructed by: Cavanagh & Richards Attorneys

For the Respondent: The Respondent in person
Instructed by: n/a

Back to Law Reports