THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case no: 089/2026

In the matter between:
ESTHER LUNGU First Appellant
BERTHA LUNGU Second Appellant
TASILA LUNGU Third Appellant
DALIESO LUNGU Fourth Appellant
CHIYESO LUNGU Fifth Appellant
CHARLES PHIRI Sixth Appellant
MAKEBI ZULU Seventh Appellant

and

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA First Respondent
TWO MOUNTAINS BURIAL SERVICES (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
AND COOPERATION Third Respondent

2


Neutral citation: Esther Lungu and Others v Government of The Republic of
Zambia and Others (089/2026) [202 6] ZASCA 87 (23 June
2026)
Coram: SMITH, KEIGHTLEY and NORMAN JJA and MOLITSOANE
and MOOKI AJJA
Heard: 29 May 2026
Judgments: Keightley JA (majority): [1] to [62]
Norman JA (dissent): [63] to [112]

Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives by email, published on the Supreme Court of Appeal website,
and released to SAFLII. The date and time for hand -down is deemed to be 23 June
2026 at 11h00.
Summary: Burial dispute – Government of Zambia claiming right to repatriate and
bury late former President – family disputing on basis of deceased's expressed
wishes and constitutional rights to dignity, privacy and family autonomy – foreign
custom and protocols to be proved by expert evidence – common law and
constitutional rights of family prevail – in absence of proof of agreement Zambian
Government has no right to repatriate and bury – family’s right prevails.

3



ORDER


On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (Ledwaba AJP and
Mudau ADJP et Potterill sitting as court of first instance):
1 The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so
employed.
2 The order of the high court is set aside and is replaced by the following order:
‘The application is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel where
so employed.’


JUDGMENT


Keightley JA (Smith JA and Molitsoane and Mooki AJJA concurring):

Introduction
[1] The death of a loved one inevitably evokes grief for the family of the
deceased. The burial of the earthly remains is an important rite, allowing the family
to share the burden of grief with their community, while at the same time inviting a
celebration of a life lived. The perimeter of grief extends outwards, when the
deceased is a former head of state, embracing not just family and friends but also the
nation. Sadly, in this case, which involves the burial of the deceased former President
of the Republic of Zambia , President Edgar Lungu (the late President Lungu ), the

4


very ritual intended to bring closure has, instead, pitted family against the state in a
hard-fought legal dispute far from the protagonists’ home.

[2] The first appellant is the wife of the late former President Lungu , Esther
Lungu (Ms Lungu), and the second to sixth appellants are his children and other
close relatives. I refer to them collectively as ‘the family’. The seventh app ellant is
Makebi Zulu (Mr Zulu) who is the family’s spokesperson. The first respondent is the
Government of Zambia (the Zambian Government). The mortuary where the late
former President Lungu’s remains lie is the second respondent, Two Mountains
Burial Services (Pty) Ltd . The third respondent, the South Afric an Minister of
International Relations and Co -operation, was cited in the high court proceedings
but no relief was sought against the Minister. Neither second nor third respondents
have participated in the appeal.

[3] The late former President Lungu came to South Africa from Zambia in
January 2025 for medical treatment. H is condition being terminal, h e died in this
country on 5 June 2025. For reasons that will become clear shortly, there is a dispute
between the family and the Zambian Government over how, and consequently
where, the late former President Lungu should be buried. In the immediate aftermath
of his death, several meetings were held between representatives of the family and
the Zambian Government in an effort to reach consensus on the manner of burial.
This is a matter of some dispute, but stated broadly, the Zambian Government wishes
to give the late President a state funeral in Zambia, with all the formal trappings,
including the involvement of the current President of Zambia, Mr Hakainde
Hichilema (President Hichilema). The family, on the other hand, citing the late
former President Lungu’s stated wishes – including a deathbed declaration – insist

5


that if a state funeral is to be accorded to him, then President Hichilema should play
no role.

[4] When the attempts at mediating a solution failed, the Zambian Government
instituted an urgent application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
(the high court) on 24 June 2025. The urgent application was for interim relief, aimed
at retaining the late former President Lungu’s remains in the mortuary pending an
application to be instituted by the Zambian Government for an order permitting it to
repatriate the body to Zambia. An interim order was granted by agreement between
the parties on 25 J une 2025. It incorporated timelines for the filing of further
affidavits in support of, and opposition to, the Zambian Government’s application
for final relief, with a hearing date set for 4 August 2025.

[5] The application was heard by the high court comprising Ledwaba AJP, Mudau
ADJP and Potterill J. On 8 August 2025, the panel delivered a joint judgment and
order, the relevant paragraphs of which were as follows:
‘4. It is ordered that [the Zambian Government] is entitled to repatriate the body of the [late
former President Lungu] … for a state funeral and burial in Embassy Park, Lusaka, Republic of
Zambia.
5. [The second respondent] is authorised and ordered upon service of the court order by the
Sheriff of this Honourable Court, to immediately surrender the body of the [late former President
Lungu] to a representative … of the Zambian High Commission to enable [the Zambian
Government] to repatriate the body to Zambia for the purposes stated in paragraph 4 above.
6. [The family is] authorised to be present when paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Order are executed,
and an Aide De Camp, [late former President Lungu’s] physician, and two Family members may
accompany the coffin containing the body of [late former President Lungu] during the repatriation.
7. There is no order as to costs, which includes reserved costs.’

6


[6] The high court refused leave to appeal with costs on 16 September 2025. It
found that there were no reasonable prospects of success on the merits, and the re
were no important constitutional or other points of law justifying an appeal. This
Court granted leave to appeal to the appellants on 11 December 2025.

Facts
[7] The late former President Lungu was the sixth President of Zambia. He was
in office from January 2015 until August 2021, when his political party, the Patriotic
Front, was replaced in an election by the United Party for National Development. Its
presidential candidate, President Hichilema, is the current President of Zambia. On
the vacation of his office, the late former President Lungu was granted the normal
benefits accruing to former Presidents under the Benefits of Former Presidents Act,
1993 (the Benefits Act). However, on 30 October 2023, he received a letter from the
Office of the President (the withdrawal letter) referring to his pension and other
benefits. The withdrawal letter recorded that the late former President Lungu had
publicly announced that he had returne d to active politics. It drew attention to the
Benefits Act which provided that the pension and other benefits conferred would not
be paid to a former President who engaged in those activities. The letter proceeded
as follows:
‘4. Therefore, following Your Excellency’s decision to return to active politics, as evidenced
from your acts and the speech delivered by Your Excellency at the 9th Memorial Anniversary, you
are hereby informed that Zambian Government , shall henceforth, no longer provide benefits
accruing to the Office of the Sixth President of the Republic of Zambia in accordance with the law.
5. Accordingly, Your Excellency, be informed that Zambian Government will enforce the law
with immediate effect by withdrawing all of the benefits conferred on you by the Act.
6. Accordingly, Your Excellency, please note that you shall be removed from the payroll
effective 1st November 2023.

7


7. In addition, the Office of the Sixth President is closed with immediate effect and all staff
assigned to that Office will be redeployed. Further, take note that Zambian Government will no
longer provide security, accommodation, transport and other requirements as the law provides, to
a Former President.’

[8] These measures were implemented immediately with the eff ect that, at the
time of his death, the late former President Lungu was accorded none of the benefits
normally attaching to the office of a former President. The parties disagree on the
legal effect of the withdrawal letter, which is an issue I address later.

[9] The withdrawal of the late former President Lungu’s benefits and the closure
of his official office was the culmination of a series of prior actions taken by the
Zambian Government . On 6 September 2023, the late former President Lungu
boarded a flight bound for Seoul in South Korea to attend the 8th HWPL World Peace
Summit. He was removed from the aeroplane by Zambian Government security
personnel. On 9 September 2023, the police prevented him from attending a church
service to which he had been invited by the Ndola Pastors’ Fellowship . The police
then cancelled the service. In a third incident, the Zambian Government
implemented a protocol requiring the late former President Lungu t o obtain the
consent of President Hichilema before traveling out of Zambia. He sought consent
to visit his primary health care providers in South Africa in September 2023. In a
letter dated 7 September from the Office of the President, he was advised that:
‘…authority has not been granted for you, Your Excellency, for travel to South Africa
for medical review’. No reason was provided.

[10] None of these incidents are disputed. The Zambian Government stated that
the late former President Lungu was removed from the flight to Seoul because it had

8


received information that the late former President Lungu would use the peace
summit to further a political agenda, which was prohibited under the Benefits Act.
The explanation for the refusal to permit him to travel to South Africa for medical
reasons is that the late former President Lungu did not provide the Zambian
Government with any particulars of the medical treatment he was to receive. The
Zambian Government provides no evidence that it ever requested these details, nor
does it explain how the nature of the treatment could possibly have been relevant to
a request for authorisation to travel out of Zambia.

[11] In late 2024 the late former President became more ill and rea lised that he
required urgent medical attention. In January 2025, during a visit by the United
Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, he
took the opportunity to leave Zambia on a commercial flight without Zambian
Governmental authority. He was accompanied by Ms Lungu and other members of
the family. When he was medically examined in South Africa he was diagnosed with
terminal cancer of the oesophagus. He was advised that due to the delay in this
diagnosis, the cancer w as inoperable. The late former President Lungu never
returned to Zambia. He remained in South Africa, receiving palliative care, until his
death.

[12] One does not have to scratch too far beneath the surface to appreciate that
from at least September 2023 the late former President Lungu viewed himself to be
persona non grata in his own country. I make no comment on whether he was
justified in his views, but what is certain is that it was these experiences by the late
former President Lungu that explain the strong views he expressed prior to his death
about his burial.

9


[13] Ms Lungu states in her answering affidavit that during the period that the late
former President Lungu was receiving palliative care in South Africa he openly and
consistently expressed the wish that he did not want the Zambian Government, and
particularly President Hichilema, to be anywhere near his body or funeral. He felt
that he had been mistreated by them and he voiced an objection to the participation
in his burial by those who, in his view, had forsaken him in life. He expressly did
not want President Hichilema to preside at his funeral as he felt that it would be
‘immoral and disrespectful to subject a person to rites they did not believe in in their
lifetime, at their funeral and worse still superintend over a perceived enemy’s funeral
as if they were spoils of war.’

[14] The late former President Lungu felt that he would not be afforded a dignified
send-off if President Hichilema was present. He expressed his views in an interview
with a Zambian researcher, Dr Sishuwa, in May 2025. According to Ms Lungu, the
late former President Lungu repeated his wishes to her shortly before he was sedated
for intubation. He never regained consciousness.

[15] The family accepted the late former President Lungu’s wishes and , after his
death, began planning a private funeral. They planned to repatriate the body to
Zambia on a private charter plane on about 11 June 2025. At the same time, the
Zambian Government despatched a delegation to South Africa to meet with the
family. The delegation conveyed that the Zambian Government was desirous to
accord the late former President Lungu a state funeral and burial. They discussed the
logistical arrangements with the family, which included the burial of the remains at
Embassy Park, the designated burial site for late Zambian Presidents. Mr Zulu,
raised several obj ections by the family, chief among which was that President
Hichilema should not be permitted to attend the funeral.

10



[16] What followed was a series of meetings between representatives of the
Zambian Government and of the family between 6 and 17 June 2025 in an attempt
to find common ground between the wishes of the family and those of the Zambian
Government regarding the funeral arrangements. The parties also exchanged written
communications, and released press statements between 6 June and 23 June 2025. I
deal with the relevant details of the meetings and other exchanges later.

[17] Ultimately, on 23 June 2025, the family advised that it would not agree to the
repatriation for purposes of a state funeral and burial at Embassy Park. The family
announced its decision to arrange a private burial of the late former President Lungu
in South Africa. It was this decision that prompted the Zambian Government ’s
approach to the high court for relief.

In the high court
[18] In its application to the high court the Zambian Government asserted a clear
right to determine where and how the late former President Lungu was to be buried,
regardless of the wishes of the family. It averred that insofar as there was a conflict
of laws to be resolved by t he court, Zambian law should prevail. The Zambian
Government relied primarily on the Benefits Act as the source of its right to bury the
late former President Lungu. A second source of the Zambian Government’s alleged
right under Zambian law was the traditions, customs and protocols that apply to the
burial of former heads of state.

[19] The Zambian Government contended that e ven if South African law was
applicable, the family was bound by an agreement reached between them and the
Zambian Government during the series of meetings held between the parties. The

11


Zambian Government’s stated position was that the family had agreed to the late
former President’s burial at Embassy Park in Zambia and t hat the family ‘cannot
now be permitted, at a whim, so to speak, to renege on that agreement’. The Zambian
Government pleaded that it had a right to the enforcement of its terms.

[20] The family disputed that Zambian law was applicable. They relied on ss 10
and 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution).
Section 10 provides that ‘everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their
dignity respected and protected’ and section 39 enjoins courts to promote values of
dignity, equality, and freedom. The family asserted that these principles were
applicable in the resolution of disputes involving personal matters, including legacy
and status. Their right to dignity and family autonomy had to be respected and
protected in cases of conflict between them and the Zambian Government. Their
position was also pr otected under the common law, which recognises that the next
of kin have the right to decide on matters of burial.

[21] They denied that the Benefits Act accorded the Zambian Government any
right to bury the late former President Lungu. First, because his bene fits under that
Act had been revoked, and, second, because at best, all that the Benefits Act provided
for was reimbursement for funeral expenses. The family also denied that the
Zambian Government had any right under Zambian custom, tradition and protocol
to decide on the burial of a former President who had been stripped of the benefits
of his office. Finally, the family disputed that there was an agreement between the
parties for the repatriation and state funeral of the late former President Lungu.

[22] In its judgment the high court identified the main issue to be whether the
parties had agreed on the repatriation and burial of the late former President Lungu

12


(the contractual issue). Central to this issue, in the high court’s view, was a document
attached to the supplementary founding affidavit as annexure FAA7. The high court
described it as a ‘tentative programme’ drawn up by the family, reflecting that the
body would be repatriated to Zambia on a private charter plane on 18 June 2025 for
purposes of a state funeral and burial. The high court applied the accepted principles
of interpretation of written documents. It concluded that:
‘If regard is had to the grammar and syntax of “FAA7”, the purpose for which it was drawn up,
considering that both parties were alive to the disputes between them, “FAA7” can only be
interpreted as an agreement between the parties. The agreement entailing, first and foremost,
repatriation to Zambia for burial purposes. Based upon the chronology of the common cause facts
referring to the media briefing and the proposed programme drafted by the Family, fortifies this
finding. There is thus no factual dispute before this Court. The legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda (agreements must be kept) also finds application.’1

[23] Although the high court applied South African legal principles to its
interpretation of FAA7, it found that Zambian law was the proper lex causae. The
high court was persuaded by the finding of the High Court for Zambia in The People
v The Secretary to the Cabinet: Ex Parte Kaweche Kaunda (Kaunda)2 that a state
funeral in Zambia is a public ceremony, in which strict rules of protocol are
observed. The high court in Zambia v Lungu (HC) found that:
‘… even if it was a personal wish of the late President not to be accorded a state funeral, such a
wish must be overridden by the public interest. This finding too caters for the order that follows
below.’3


1 Government of the Republic of Zambia v Lungu and Others 2025 JDR 3796 (GP); [2025] ZAGPPHC 858 (Zambia
v Lungu (HC)) para 25.

v Lungu (HC)) para 25.
2 The People v The Secretary to the Cabinet: Ex parte Kaweche Kaunda (2021/HP/0768); [2021] ZMHC 6 (Kaunda).
3 Zambia v Lungu (HC) (Kaunda) para 27.

13


[24] Consequently, on the bases of both contract and Zambian protocol and
custom, the high court granted the order sought by the Zambian Government. It did
not consider or make any finding in respect of the Benefits Act.

On appeal
[25] The core issue in this appeal is whether the high court correctly concluded that
the Zambian Government had established a clear right to bury the late former
President Lungu contrary to the wishes of his family . One question that may be
disposed of immediately is that of the Benefits Act and the Zambian Government’s
pleaded case that this legislation is the source of its right.

[26] Contrary to its pleaded case, a t the hearing of the appeal counsel for the
Zambian Government expressly eschewed any reliance on the Benefits Act. This
concession was correctly made. In the first instance, the late former President Lungu
had been stripped of all benefits under t hat Act while he was alive. The letter of
withdrawal makes it quite clear that his benefits were terminated. They were not, as
the Zambian Government contended, merely suspended and revived on his death. In
any event, while the Benefits Act places an obligation on the Zambian Government
to reimburse a deceased former President’s family for funeral expenses, none of its
provisions give the Zambian Government any entitlement to make decisions about
their burial. There was thus never any merit in its contention that the Benefits Act
accorded it a clear right to bury the late former President Lungu contrary to his
wishes and those of his family.

[27] The family submits that the high court erred in three main respects . First, it
committed a fundamental error in failing to consider the family’s constitutional
rights, particularly its rights to dignity, family autonomy and privacy. They submit

14


that these rights were expressly pleaded and that they are the underlying basis upon
which the dispute over the right to bury the late former President Lungu is to be
determined. Moreover, submits the family, their constitutional rights align with th e
common law, which recognises that it is the next-of-kin who has the right to decide
on issues of burial. Thus, the high court’s finding that the Zambian Government had
established a clear right , is contrary to the rights of the family under both the
Constitution and the common law.

[28] The second error of the high court, as identified by the family, is its
recognition and application of Zambian law in deciding that custom and practice
dictate that the Zambian Government has the final say in burying the late former
President Lungu. This is because there was no expert evidence before the high court
establishing, as a fact, what the law of Zambia is on the issue. In addition, the family
submits that the high court erred in its reliance on the Kaunda judgment.

[29] The third error committed by the high court, according to the family, was in
its finding that the parties concluded an agreement which bound the family to permit
the late former President Lungu’s body to be repatriated to Zambia for a state funeral.
In particular, the high court erred in finding that annexure FAA7 was the document
recording an agreement between the parties . This was never the Zambian
Government’s pleaded case. Nor, submits the family, do the facts , considered as a
whole, establish anything more than ongoing discussions between the parties on the
issue of burial, which discussions were never finalised.

[30] Before turning to the issues raised in these grounds of appeal, it is necessary
to say something about the conflict of laws question. The family correctly criticises
the high court for finding that the lex causae was Zambian law, while at the same

15


time using South African legal principles in determining the contractual issue. This
ambiguity in the high court’s judgment is indicative of a more fundamental problem,
which is that, properly understood, the dispute does not truly concern a conflict of
laws at all.

[31] The Zambian Government accepts on appeal that the family is entitled to rely
on their Constitutional rights, based on their presence within South Africa. This is
consistent with long-standing Constitutional Court authority that the Bill of Rights
applies to all people in South Africa, regardless of their nationality.4 In addition, the
Zambian Government accepts that the contractual issue must also be determined by
applying South African law. This, too, is a concession correctly made. All of the
conduct relevant to this issue took place in South Africa. What is more, the Zambian
Government took no steps to tender evidence on the Zambian law of contract.
Consequently, the only law that can apply to this question is South Afric an law.
There is thus no conflict of laws question on the contractual issue.

[32] In respect of the Zambian Government’s reliance on Zambian custom and
practice, too, there is no true conflict of laws question. This is so because, as pointed
out by the family, no evidence was tendered to establish the requisite legal principles
the Zambian Government relies upon. A party relying on the application of foreign
law must prove the content of that law as a matter of fact .5 This requires evidence
tendered by an independent expert. It follows that a party may not be an expert in its
own proceedings.6 In the absence of expert evidence to establish the content of any

4 Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others ; Mahlaule and Others v Minister of Social
Development and Others 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC); 2004 (6) BCLR 569 (CC) para 47.
5 The Asphalt Venture Windrush Intercontinental SA and Another v UACC Bergshav Tankers AS [2016] ZASCA 199;
2017 (3) SA 1 (SCA) para 31.

2017 (3) SA 1 (SCA) para 31.
6 Stock v Stock 1981 (3) SA 1280 (A) at 1296E-F; See also Jackson v Jackson 2002 (2) SA 303 (SCA) para 16.

16


foreign law relied on by a party, it is presumed that the foreign law is consistent with
South African law.7

[33] The Zambian Government’s application was instituted by Mr Mulilo Kabesha
(Mr Kabesha). He is the attorney-general of Zambia. In the supplementary founding
affidavit deposed to on behalf of the Zambian Government Mr Kabesha stated that
by virtue of the Zambian Constitution he is duly authorised to represent the Zambian
Government and to bring the application on its behalf. He is also the Zambian
Government’s chief legal advisor.

[34] Mr Kabesha averred that in Zambian law, the burial of a former President is
treated as a public state event , integral to the Zambian national identity and
constitutional heritage. Consequently, he averred, the Zambian President has the
final say in the burial of a deceased President. As evidence of these legal principles,
Mr Kabesha relied on his own professed expertise, stating that: ‘I consider myself to
be an expert in the field of Zambian Law and I respectfully confirm that the Zambian
legal principles set out above , are correct’. Perhaps appreciating that confirmation
by an independent expert would be necessary, Mr Kabesha stated that Mr Mutemwa
Mutemwa (Mr Mutemwa), a counsel in private practice , confirmed the correctness
of the principles stated. There was no confirmatory affidavit from Mr Mutemwa.

[35] Consequently, the only evidence of the Zambian law relied upon by the
Zambian Government was that stated by the person who instituted the proceedings
on its behalf. There being no admissible expert evidence to establish these principles,

7 Caterham Car Sales & Coachworks Ltd v Birkin Cars (Pty) Ltd and Another 1998 (3) SA 938 (SCA); [1998] 3 All
SA 175 (A); 1998 BIP 198 (SCA) para 34.

17


in effect, South African legal principles apply. For this reason, too, there is no true
conflict of laws question at play in the dispute.

[36] The remaining questions in the appeal are:
(a) What are the respective rights of the parties under our common law , as
understood within the context of appropriate constitutional rights and
principles?
(b) In the event that it is the family who has the right to decide on the burial of the
late former President Lungu, was the high court correct in finding that the
family was contractually bound to permit the Zambian Government to
repatriate and bury his remains?

The common law and constitutional position
[37] For decades the accepted common-law position, stated in several provincial
division decisions, has been that in the absence of directions from the deceased,
decisions regarding his or her burial fall to the heirs in accordance with the principles
of succession.8 This accords with our Constitution, which recognises the right to
privacy and dignity. A family’s right to decide on the burial of a loved one falls within
the inner sanctum of an individual’s family life.9 It is an exercise of family autonomy
involving the final act of kinship family members will perform for their loved one.
Any interference impacts upon the family members’ sense of self -worth and self -
actualisation and, consequently, their dignity.

8 Saiid v Schatz and Another 1972 (1) SA 491 (T) at 493H-494D; Human v Human and Others 1975 (2) SA 251 (E)
at 254C; Tseola and Another v Maqutu and Another 1976 (2) SA (TK) at 422H; Mbanjwa v Mona 1977 (4) SA 403
(TkS) at 405F-G; Khumalo and Others v Khumalo and Another 1984 (2) SA 229 (D) at 232E; Sekeleni v Sekeleni and
Another1986 (2) SA 176 (TkS) at 178A; Mnyama v Gxalaba and Another 1990 (1) SA 650 (C); Mabulu v Thys and
Another 1993 (4) SA 701 (SE); Simakuhle v Simakuhle 2024 JDR 0331 (GP) para 36; P N and Others v P N [2024]
ZAGPJHC 924 para 15.

ZAGPJHC 924 para 15.
9 See Bernstein and Others v Bester and Others NNO 1996 (4) BCLR 449 (CC); 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC) (Bernstein)
para 67.

18



[38] Of significance in this appeal is the fact that the burial dispute in question is
not one between competing family members, as is most often the case. In stead, it
involves the claim to a right of burial as an exercise of public power by a state against
the avowed wishes of the affected family. In this situation, courts are enjoined to
ensure that the constitutional rights of Ms Lungu and those of her family members
are protected agai nst the exercise of excessive state power. Absent a clear and
convincing legal basis for finding differently, it would not be constitutionally
permissible for the Zambian Government’s interests to override those of the family.

[39] The Zambian Government submitted that there was good reason to reach a
different conclusion. It pointed to recent cases in which, relying on the constitutional
principle of ubuntu , high courts have been persuaded that fairness and the public
interest may legitimately permit a form of burial contrary to the wishes of the heir.10
The Zambian Government referred to the following exposition by the Constitutional
Court of the concept of ubuntu in S v Makwanyane:11
‘The concept is of some relevance to the values we need to uphol d. It is a culture which places
some emphasis on communality and on the interdependence of the members of a community. It
recognises a person’s status as a human being, entitled to unconditional respect, dignity, value and
acceptance from the members of the community such person happens to be part of. It also entails
the converse, however.’

[40] It was the Zambian Government’s submission that because of the late former
President Lungu’s public position as a former head of state, the principle of ubuntu
justified the high court’s conclusion that the family’s personal interests should yield

10 Finlay and Another v Kutoane 1993 (4) SA 675 (W); See also W and Others v S and Others (360/16) [2016]

ZAWCHC 49 (4 May 2016) para 32; Lemaku v Simunye 2022 JDR 1481 (FB); LS v RL 2019 (4) SA 50 (GJ) para 40.
11 S v Makwanyane 1995 (2) SACR 1 (CC); 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) para 224.

19


to the communal interests of the Zambian nation. This, it submitted further, was
consistent with the judgment in the Kaunda matter.

[41] I am not persuaded by these submissions. The Kaunda judgment involved an
application for leave to apply for judicial review. As such, it was an ex parte hearing
without the benefit of evidence adduced in the form of founding and opposing
affidavits as in this matter. The Zambian Government relies on the Zambian high
court’s finding that:
‘A state funeral in my firm understanding is a public funeral ceremony, observing the strict rules
of protocol, held to honour people of national significance.’12

[42] However, the difficulty for the Zambian Government is that the judgment does
not refer to any evidence of the content of the se protocols. The dictum goes no
further than recording the ‘understanding’ of Muma J, who presided over the matter.
In the absence of admissible evidence establishing the protocols governing state
funerals in Zambia , the Kaunda judgment does not advance the Zambian
Government’s case that protocol and custom give it the right to bury the late former
President Lungu.

[43] There is a further difficulty with the Zambian Government’s reliance on the
Kaunda judgment. The Zambian high court expressl y found that ‘there is no
empirical evidence adduced in relation to the wish of the [deceased]’. That is not the
position in this appeal. Although t here is no written record of the late former
President’s burial wishes, Ms Lungu and other members of the family aver that, up
to the time of his impending death, he consiste ntly instructed that the Zambian

12 Kaunda fn 3 above.

20


Government - and President Hichilema in particular - should play no part. According
to Ms Lungu, he expressed his wish outside the family circle, to Dr Sishuwa, in an
interview shortly before his death. Dr Sishuwa furnished a confirmatory affidavit in
this respect.

[44] The Zambian Government sought to place doubt on the family’s averments
regarding the late former President Lungu’s burial wishes. It contended that the
family’s version was irreconcilable with the late former President Lungu’s desire for
a state funeral. The Zambian Government does not lay a factual basis for this
allegation. It is so, as the Zambian Government was at pains to point out, that there
is no evidence to suggest that the late former President Lungu expressed any wish to
be buried in South Africa. In my view, this is not a determining factor.

[45] What is patently clear is that a ll the evidence points to the late former
President’s expressed aversion to any involvement by President Hichilema in his
funeral and burial. His concern was with the manner of his burial , not the place
thereof. If he c annot be buried in Zambia without the involvement of President
Hichilema, the obvious alternative was a burial outside that country. The late former
President spent his last months in South Africa. Ms Lungu avers that he realised that
he would never return. Ms Lungu and family members were in South Africa with
him in his final months. They retain a physical presence here, albeit that t hey have
not moved here permanently . The family’s decision is not unreasonable and is
consistent with the late former President Lungu’s primary concern , namely the
exclusion of any involvement by President Hichilema in his funeral and burial.

[46] The family’s evidence in this regard does not stand in isolation. It is consistent
with the undisputed evidence of his treatment by the Zambian Government in the

21


three incidents in September 2023 referred to earlier, culminating in the decision to
strip him of the benefits of his former office. The family were the respondents in the
application before the high court. Applying the Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van
Riebeck Paints (Pty)Ltd 13 approach, the family’s version must prevail. It must be
accepted that it was the late former President’s wish that President Hichilema would
not be a welcome presence at his funeral. This is very different to the Kaunda case,
where the Kaunda family initially objected to the late President Kaunda being buried
at Embassy Park. The Kaunda family later agreed to a burial at Embassy Park, with
the late former President Lungu in attendance as head of state.

[47] What of the Zambian Government’s related contention that the principle of
ubuntu supports the high court’s conclusion that the Zambian Government’s interests
should prevail over those of the family? In my view, this submission, too, lacks
merit. The provincial division decisions relied on by the Zambian Government
involved private disputes about the burial of a deceased person. I have already noted
that this case is substantively different in that it concerns a dispute between family
members and a state. In this situation, courts are bound not only to respect but also
to protect the constitutional rights of family members.

[48] There is nothing irrational about the family’s position: they are honouring the
wishes of the late former President Lungu by refusing to permit a repatriation and
burial by the Zambian Government. The late former President Lungu represented a
particular political community. This attracted the ire of the Zambian Government.
His expressed burial wishes are consistent with the interests of the community he
represented. They are also consistent with his own sense of dignity and, by

13 Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] 2 All SA 366 (A); 1984 (3) SA 623 at 634G-635D.

22


extension, that of his family. As such, the constitutional principle of ubuntu supports,
rather than overrides, the need to respect his burial wishes, and the family’s decision
to honour them.

[49] For all of these reasons, I find that neither the Constitution nor the common
law establish a right on the part of the Zambian Government to repatriate and bury
the late former President Lungu contrary to the family’s decision.

Contractual issue
[50] The Zambian Government submits t hat what transpired as a result of the
meetings and negotiations between it and the family was a binding agreement that
the body would be repatriated to Zambia for a sta te funeral and burial at Embassy
Park. The first meeting was held on 6 June 2025, the day after the late former
President’s death. At that stage, the family was preparing to arrange a private
repatriation and burial in Zambia. They objected to the Zambian Government ’s
proposal that the body be repatriated on a military airport for burial at Embassy Park.
The family advised the Zambian Government that this would go against t he late
former President Lungu’s wishes: he had wanted his body to be flown on a private
aircraft and, importantly, if he was accorded a state funeral, President Hichilema
should not be permitted to attend.

[51] A second delegation met with the family on 10 Ju ne 2025. It was at this
meeting that the family presented the Zambian Government with the document
FAA7. This was a proposed programme for the repatriation, funeral and burial. It
involved the repatriation of the remains on a private charter aircraft on 18 June 2025,
the receiving of the body in Zambia by the family and military honours. The body
would be available for viewing from 19 to 20 June 2025, followed by a state funeral,

23


hosting foreign dignitaries on 21 June. There is no reference in FAA7 to any role for
President Hichilema. Further proposals contained in FAA7 were that the body would
always lie in state at Chifwema ; it would be accompanied by a relative ; and the
parties would consult and agree on who was to speak at all events.

[52] It was never the Zambian Government’s case that FAA7 comprised the terms
of the written agreement between the parties . The high court erred in relying on
FAA7 as embodying an agreement. It is common cause that FAA7 was in the form
of a proposal, and that negotiations between the parties continued after the family
presented it to the Zambian Government . This much is clear from the Zambian
Government’s own press release on 11 June 2025, announcing that ‘constructive
consultations between the Zambian Government , the [f]amily and other
[s]takeholders are still ongoing’.

[53] The Zambian Government avers that it was on 14 June 2025, at a meeting held
at the Southern Sun Hotel, Sandton, that the parties reached agreement . It refers to
two television news broadcasts, the transcripts of which it annexes to its
supplementary founding affidavit, as evidence that on 14 June 2025 the family
agreed to a state funeral presided over by President Hichilema. The family denies
this, contending that it is a misrepresentation of events, and that they were willing to
accept no more than President Hichilema’s presence when foreign dignitaries arrived
at the state funeral.

[54] At the centre of the Zambian Government’s contention are the transcripts of
news broadcasts by two Zambian news agencies, the Zambian National
Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) and the Zambia National Information Services
(ZNIS) on 15 June 2025. The Zambian Government avers that these news report s

24


covered the joint press conference between Zambian Government and the family
after agreement had been reached. In particular, the Zambian Government relies on
the following statement in the transcript, which records Mr Kangwa, the secretary to
the Cabinet as saying that: ‘… in accordance with the family’s wishes and the dignity
befitting the service of the sixth President to our nation, a state funeral shall be held
and shall be presided over by the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Hakainde
Hichilema, culminating in the former president’s burial on Monday, 23 June 2025’.

[55] The submission by the Zambian Government is that the transcripts show that
Mr Zulu, the family’s spokesperson, was present at the press conference and offered
no opposition to the statement that President Hichilema would preside over the state
funeral. On the contrary, asserts the Zambian Government, the transcripts record Mr
Zulu’s announcement that the family ‘wishes to announce that it has reached
agreement with representatives of the government ’ on the repatriation, funeral and
burial arrangements. This, it says, is incontrovertible proof that the family agreed to
a state funeral, presided over by President Hichilema followed by the burial at
Embassy Park. The Zambian Government accuses the family of subsequently
reneging on this undertaking when, on 23 June 2025, they announced that the body
would not be repatr iated, and that a private funeral in South Africa would be held
instead. It submits it has a contractual right to enforce the agreement and to proceed
with the repatriation and burial of the late former President Lungu’s body in
accordance with the agreement reached.

[56] The family consistently disputed that it had reached an agreement on the terms
stated by the Zambian Government. It contends that it was the Zambian Government
which, at the last moment, imposed a condition that the family found unacceptable,

which, at the last moment, imposed a condition that the family found unacceptable,
namely the involvement of President Hichilema. On the trite principle applicable to

25


material disputes of fact in motion court proceedings, the family’s denial that it
concluded an agreement on the terms relied on by the Zambian Government must
be accepted unless it is so far-fetched or clearly untenable as to be rejected.14

[57] On closer examination, the transcripts of the news broadcasts do not justify
rejection of the family’s version. A comparison between them shows that the
broadcasts comprised ‘sound bites’ from different speakers, put together by each
news channel to form its own composite news item.

[58] This is demonstrated by the inclusion of the respective news presenter’s name,
and personal comments at the commencement and throughout each transcript. A
third transcript attached to the supplementary founding affidavit is that of a public
address by Mr Zulu. Sound bites from this address have been included in those from
the ZNBC and ZNIS transcripts, word for word. Clearly, what transpired was that
Mr Zulu’s comments from his press conference were ‘spliced’ into the news
broadcasts as part of the overall coverage on the issue. Consequently, while the
transcripts give the impression that Mr Zulu’s comments were made in the presence
of Mr K angwa and in response to his announcements, this is in fa ct not so. The
transcripts are not evidence of the family’s agreement to a state funeral presided over
by President Hichilema.

[59] It is common cause that there were ongoing negotiations between the parties,
with the exchange between them of several proposed programmes over a period of
approximately two weeks after the late former President Lungu’s death. These were
revised, and at least one was withdrawn by the Zambian Government . What is

14 Op cit fn 12.

26


consistently unclear from all these versions of proposed programmes is the role of
President Hichilema in the proceedings. In the absence of definitive evidence from
the Zambian Government that the family had agreed to renounce its strongly -held
position on President Hichilema’s involvement, the family’s version that there was
no agreement must prevail.

[60] For these reasons, I find that the high court erred in concluding that the
Zambian Government had established a contractual right to an order directing the
repatriation of the late former President Lungu’s body for purposes of a state funeral
in Zambia.

Conclusion and order
[61] The Zambian Government ’s failure to establish a right under either the
common law or contract to override the family’s burial decision is fatal to its case.
The high court erred in finding that the Zambian Government was entitled to relief.
It ought properly to have dismissed the application. The appeal must be upheld and
the order of the high court set aside. There is no reason why costs should not follow
the result.

[62] I make the following order:
1 The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so
employed.
2 The order of the high court is set aside and is replaced by the following order:
‘The application is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel
where so employed.’

27


____________________
R M KEIGHTLEY
JUDGE OF APPEAL

Norman JA (dissent):
[63] I had the benefit of reading the majority judgment and I am grateful to my
colleague Keightley JA for the exposition of the facts. However, I differ with respect,
from the findings made therein and the order proposed. I shall briefly refer to
relevant facts for context and in support of my findings, where necessary.

[64] The profound words of Ms Tasila Lungu, the daughter of the late former
President Dr Edgar Lungu, when she announced the passing of the late former
President Lungu defined the worth, stature and the calibre of the person that the late
former President was to his family, Zambia and her people. She said:
‘In this moment of grief, we invoke the spirit of One Zambia, One nation. The timeless creed that
guided President Lungu’s service to our country.’

[65] That spirit is in perfect alignment with the South African principle of Ubuntu.
The late Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, when asked by Mr Eric Sirotkin 15
what ubuntu means, explained it as follows:
‘There is no direct translation in Western terms. Ubuntu means I am human through my relations
with others. You are a person through other persons. It speaks of social or communal harmony as
a human person is seen as corporate. The solitary individual person is in our understanding a
contradiction in terms Ubuntu says I am human only because you are human. If I undermine your
humanity, I dehumanise myself. Ubuntu speaks of warmth, compassion, generosity, hospitality,

15 Eric Sirotkin Witness: A Lawyer’s Journey from Litigation to Liberation (2023) ‘Ubuntu What is Ubuntu? Meeting
with Archbishop Desmond Tutu ’ Accessed at <https://ubuntuworks.org/what -is-ubuntu-meeting-with-archbishop-
desmond-tutu-ubuntuworks/>.

28


seeking to embrace others. You must do what you can to maintain this great harmony, which is
perpetually being undermined by resentment, anger, or a desire for vengeance.’

[66] The Constitutional Court embraced the term in its judgment in S v
Makwanyane.16 Justice Mokgoro explained ubuntu in these terms:
‘Generally, ubuntu translates as humaneness. In its most fundamental sense, it translates
as personhood and morality. Metaphorically, it expresses itself in umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu ,
describing the significance of group solidarity on survival issues so central to the survival of
communities. While it envelops the key values of group solidarity, compassion, respect, human
dignity, conformity to basic norms and collective unity, in its fundamental sense it denotes
humanity and morality. Its spirit emphasises respect for human dignity, marking a shift from
confrontation to conciliation. In South Africa ubuntu has become a notion with particular
resonance in the building of a democracy. It is part of our “rainbow” heritage, though it might have
operated and still operates differently in diverse community settings. In the Western cultural
heritage, respect and the value for life, manifested in the all -embracing concepts
of humanity and menswaardigheid are also highly priced. It is values like these that Section 35
requires to be promoted. They give meaning and texture to the principles of a society based on
freedom and equality.’

[67] Ubuntu resonates with the facts of this case in that, the late former President
Lungu left office after his political party, the Patriotic Front lost in an election to the
victorious party, the United Party for National Development that elected the current
President Hakainde Hichilema as President. The late former President Lungu
decided to return to active politics. Thereafter, he was subjected to ill -treatment by
the current Government of Zambia to the extent of being denied permission to travel

the current Government of Zambia to the extent of being denied permission to travel
to South Africa to receive medical treatment. The incidents of his ill -treatment are
outlined in the majority judgment. After his death the very Government that ill -

16 S v Makwanyane and Another fn 11 above para 307.

29


treated him extended a hand to his family by expressing its wish to bury him with
dignity by repatriating his mortal remains to his home, Zambia, to extend the period
of mourning by the Zambian nation, to confer military honours on him and to accord
him a state funeral.

[68] Having considered the spirit of One Zambia, One Nation and ubuntu, I now
proceed to deal with the facts that are germane to the issues at hand.

Before the high court
[69] The Government of Zambia (the Zambian Government) sought a final order
in its amended notice of motion supported by a supplementary affidavit that: a
declarator that the Zambian Government is entitled to repatriate the body of the late
former President Edgar Lungu (the late former President) for the purposes of a state
funeral and burial th ereafter in Embassy Park, Lusaka, in the Republic of Zambia
(first order); the Two Mountains (a funeral parlour), upon demand by the sheriff of
the court, be authorised and ordered to surrender the body of the late former
President to a representative of t he Zambia High Commission so as to enable the
Zambian Government to repatriate the body to Zambia for the state funeral and burial
(second order); and an order authorising the first to seventh respondents (the family)
to be present when the second order is executed, together with an Aide De Camp,
the late former President’s personal physician and two family members may (subject
to such restrictions the Applicant may reasonably impose), accompany the coffin
containing the body of the late former President du ring repatriation (third order). A
cost order was sought only against those respondents who opposed the application.

[70] The application was opposed by the family. The High Court of the high court
constituted by Ledwaba AJP (as he then was), Mudau ADJP and Potterill J, heard

30


the application on 4 August 2025 and delivered its judgment in favour of the
Zambian Government on 8 August 2025. Thereafter an application for leave to
appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 16 September 2025. The appellants are
before us having been granted leave on petition by this Court on 11 December 2025.

[71] There were two issues for decision before the High Court, namely, whether an
agreement was reached pertaining to the repatriation and burial of the late former
President; and which law, Zambian law or South African law, applied, and which
party that law afforded a right of burial. Both issues were decided in favour of the
Zambian Government and no cost orders were made.

High Court findings
[72] The High Court made the following findings that are of relevance to this
appeal: That ‘FAA7’ reflected an agreement between the parties. It rejected the
family’s contention that it was entitled to cancel the agreement. According to the
High Court the agreement lea ves no room for doubting that President Hichilema
would be involved in receiving foreign dignitaries as the Head of State of the host
country. That the details of who else was going to speak, other than the leader of the
opposition party that the deceased belonged to were trivial. That Zambian law should
apply to the dispute because of the domicile, habitual residence and nationality of
the late President and his family as connecting factors, point to Zambian law as the
proper lex causae. In terms of Zambia n law, public policy requires that the wishes
of a late President or his or her family must yield before the requirement that the
deceased heads of state be afforded a state funeral and be buried at Embassy Park in
Zambia.

31


Before this Court
Zambian Governments’ submissions
[73] The Zambian Government contends that the High Court did not err because
the parties had agreed on the repatriation of the late former President and the state
funeral as shown in FAA7; the Zambian Government has the right and duty to accord
the late former President a state funeral and burial at Embass y Park relying on The
People v The Secretary to the Cabinet:Ex Parte Kaweche Kaunda, 17 the family is
bound by the agreement and was not entitled to cancel it; that fairness and
reasonableness, expectations of the community as found in W and Others v S and
Others18 and in Lemaku v Simunye19 should be the determining factor ; that ubuntu
as a constitutional value would recognise the dignity of the family in its relationship
with the broader community that the late President had served and in this regard
relied on S v Makwanyane;20 and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Family submissions
[74] The High Court erred in its decision to grant the orders sought by the Zambian
Government; it failed to conduct an analysis as to whether the requirements for final
relief were met; it erred to the extent that it sourced the Zambian Government’s clear
right to final mandatory relief from the purported agreement in FAA7, erred in its
finding that there was a conflict of laws and the lex causae was Zambian law; it
overlooked the constitutional rights of Ms Lungu, her children and the heirs of the
late former President; relying on Vodacom ( Pty) Limited v Kenneth Nkosana Makate

17 The People v The Secretary to the Cabinet : Ex Parte Kaweche Kaunda (HP 768 of 2021) [2021] ZMHC 6 (7 July
2021).
18 W and Others v S and Others (360/16) [2016] ZAWCHC 49 (4 May 2016).
19 Lemaku v Simunye (1887/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 114 (25 May 2022).
20 S v Makwanyane fn 11 above para 224.

32


and Another,21 it was contended that failure to consider the rights of the family led
to a failure of justice that breached the rule of law, it violated the family’s rights to a
fair hearing in section 34 of the Constitution and is sufficient ground to set aside the
High Court’s decision.

[75] FAA7 was a mere tentative programme drawn up by the family in the course
of negotiations without any animus contrahendi; FAA7 was not the alleged contract
that was at issue between the parties ; the contract that was at issue was an agreement
alleged by the Zambian Government was formed after FAA7, in terms of which the
family apparently agreed to a state funeral in Zambia presided over by President
Hichilema; the High Court misconstrued the agreement that was at issue and thus
failed to decide the true dispute between the parties which failure led to a failure of
justice necessitating interference by this Court; erred in its finding that there was a
conflict of laws between the South African and Zambian law where Zambian law
was not properly pleaded; failed to conduct a proper conflict of laws inquiry in line
with this Court’s decision in East Asian Consortium B.V . v MTN Group Limited and
Others;22 the Zambian Government failed to establish a clear right and that was fatal
to an application for final relief and in this regard relied on Midi Television (Pty) Ltd
t/a E -TV v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape).23

[76] That the family was entitled to rely on the rights entrenched in sections 15,
16, 18 and 30 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact that they were foreign
nationals and are entitled to claim those rights even against their own government.

21 Vodacom (Pty) Limited v Kenneth Nkosana Makate and Another [2025] ZACC 13; 2025 (10) BCLR 1174 (CC);
[2025] 11 BLLR 1105 (CC); 2025 (6) SA 352 (CC).
22 East Asian Consortium B.V . v MTN Group Limited and Others [2025] ZASCA 50; 2025 (5) SA 33 (SCA); [2025] 3
All SA 13 (SCA).

All SA 13 (SCA).
23 Midi Television (Pty) Ltd t/a E -TV v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape) [2007] ZASCA 56; [2007] 3
All SA 318 (SCA); 2007 (9) BCLR 958 (SCA); 2007 (5) SA 540 (SCA) para 25-26.

33


In this rega rd reliance was placed on Khosa and Others v Minister of Social
Development and Others, Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social
Development;24 no one may have a proprietary right in human remains as the human
body and its parts are classified as res extr a commercium (things outside the
commercial sphere) because a corpse is not regarded as a thing that can be owned
and is incapable of being transacted over by contracting parties. The family further
submitted that in terms of South African law, the former First Lady, as the surviving
spouse of the late former President, and not the Zambian Government, has the right
to choose where and how the late former President is to be buried.

[77] At the hearing the Zambian Government conceded, correctly in my view, that
South African law applies to these proceedings; it also conceded that the clear right
that it contends for does not stem from the Benefits Act but the Benefits Act was
relied upon for context. The family did not pursue the argument that there can be no
agreements concluded in relation to the corpse as that would be contra bonos mores.

Discussion
[78] In light of the Zambian Government’s concession that the South African laws
are applicable to this dispute it is not necessary to revisit that issue. It is important
though to mention that both South Africa and Zambia have their respective
Constitutions as their supreme laws. The Constitution of Zambia vests the sovereign
authority i n the people of Zambia, which may be exercised directly or through
elected or appointed representatives or institutions.25 This means that citizens are the

24 Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others , Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social
Development 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC); 2004 (6) BCLR 569 (CC).
25 Section 5(1) of the Zambian Constitution provides:
‘Sovereign authority vests in the people of Zambia, which may be exercised directly or through elected or appointed
representatives or institutions.’

34


ultimate source of power which they exercise through voting . Zambia has in its
Constitution principles that are listed as national values, principles and economic
policies which include, among others, morality, ethics, human dignity, equity, social
justice, equality and non -discrimination. It also recogni ses customary law to the
extent that it is not contrary to its Constitution. It is clear from its Constitution that
it has the safeguards to limit and control state power and the observance of the rule
of law. I highlight this because in the majority judgment it is found that ‘courts are
enjoined to ensure that the constitutional rights of Ms Lungu and those of her family
members are protected against the exercise of excessive state power’ as if the
Zambian Government power is unbounded. It is bound by the Constitution of
Zambia.

The wishes of the deceased
[79] What were the wishes of the late former President as conveyed to the Zambian
Government by the family?
(a) The ‘specific wishes’ and those of the family are contained in FAA10 . FAA10
encapsulates what is referred to as a compromise reached between the parties
and is a ‘Final Press on Dr Edgar Chagwa Lungu’. FAA10 conveyed the
agreement reached on repatriation of the remains of the late former President,
as well as his funeral and burial programme. FAA10 follows after FAA7.
(b) It is a statement that was presented by the spokesperson for the family, Mr
Makebi Zulu. It first records that ‘[t]he family of the former President Edgar
Chagwa Lungu, who passed away in South Africa on the 5 th of June 2025,
wishes to announce that it has reached agreement with representatives of the
government on the repatriation of the remains of the late former President, as
well as his funeral and burial programme.’ (Own emphasis.)
(c) It listed the specific wishes of the late former President as follows:

35


(1) His remains should be repatriated back home in the same manner he had travelled to South Africa,
namely, privately.
(2) Secondly, his body should lie in state at his personal residence in Chifwema area prior to burial.
(3) Thirdly, in the event that he was accorded st ate funeral, his successor should not be allowed to
attend it.
(4) Fourth, residents of Eastern and Copperbelt provinces be accorded the opportunity to pay their
last respects, as these are the places where he was born and grew up.
(5) And fifthly, that Archbishop Dr. Alec Banda be requested to preside over the church service that
may be held in his honour. (Own emphasis.)
(d) The wishes of the late former President that are listed above are consistent
with his wishes that were conveyed to the Zambian Government at the first
meeting of 6 June 2025 at the Radisson Blue Hotel, Sandton.

[80] Thereafter he listed the compromise reached by the parties in relevant parts:
‘….The family of the former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu, who passed away in South Africa
on the 5th of June 2025, wishes to announce that it has reached agreement with representatives of
the government on the repatriation of the remains of the late former President, as well as his funeral
and burial programme.
……
The two parties have since agreed to honouring the following undertakings, with each party giving
and taking so that we could come to a common compromise, and the following has been the
compromise.
(1) Number one, that the body of the late President Lungu shall be transported together with
the family from Lanseria Airport in South Africa to Zambia on Wednesday 18th June 2025,
using a private charter made available to the family by well – wishers.
(2) Secondly, following the arrival and receipt of the body by family members in Lusaka, full
military honours will be conducted at the Kenneth Kaunda International Airport, after
which the body shall be taken to the funeral house in Chifwema where it will lie in state.

which the body shall be taken to the funeral house in Chifwema where it will lie in state.
(3) Thirdly, that the body of the late forme r president will be taken to Mulungishi
International Conference Centre on Thursday 19 th June, Friday 20 th June and Saturday

36


21st June to enable members of the public to pay their last respects from 09:00 to 16:00,
after which it shall be returned on all days to the funeral house in Chifwema to lie in state.
(4) That the state funeral that will host foreign dignitaries shall be held at Mulungishi
Conference Centre on Sunday 22 nd June, and the body of former President Lungu shall
be taken to the venue and returned to Chifwema after the event where it will lie in state.
(5) That a valedictory session will be held at the Supreme Court grounds in honour of former
President Lungu, a lawyer by profession, on Monday 23rd June, to be followed by a church
service on the same day in the show grounds in Lusaka, one that would be conducted by
His Grace Archbishop Banda.
(6) That the body of the late former president shall always lie in state at the funeral house in
Chifwema and only be taken away for the above - stated functions d uring the day, after
which it shall be returned to the funeral house every day to lie in state at the conclusion
of these events.
(7) That the body of the late president shall always be accompanied by a relative, the aide -
de- camp, and the former president’s personal physician.
(8) That the period of national mourning shall be extended and that the two parties shall
always consult and agree on who speaks at all events.
(9) And further, to avoid the confusion that has been ongoing relating to the Patriotic Front
Party, that Honourable Given Lubinda will speak on behalf of the Patriotic Front Party. It
is important to emphasise that the family is proceeding based on the guarantees given by
the government of the Republic of Zambia that they not deviate from our agreement or
betray the trust of the family and the wishes of the former president. The family hopes
that this outcome will bring this matt er to a close and avoid further trauma to the family
and millions of affected Zambians.’ (Own emphasis.)

Was there an agreement reached between the parties?

Was there an agreement reached between the parties?
[81] There were several meetings that were held between the parties seeking to
reach agreement on the repatriation of the mortal remains of the late President, the
state burial and the funeral program. These meetings involved interventions made
by the former heads of state in the SADC region. At the first meeting, on 6 June 2025

37


at the Radisson Blue Hot el, Sandton, the family conveyed that it was tentatively
looking at departing Johannesburg for Lusaka on 11 June 2025 aboard a private
charter plane already arranged by the family. The family had planned to transport
the body of the late former President t o Ndola where he was born, Kitwe where he
lived during his formative years and Petauke where he hailed from. Zambians living
in South Africa had requested a memorial service since most would not be able to
travel to Zambia for the funeral. These plans show that as early as 6 June 2025, one
day after the passing of the late former President, the family was already planning
to repatriate his remains to Zambia. These arrangements were made prior to the
family's engagement with the Zambian Government.

[82] At that meeting the first appellant stated:
‘It is admitted that the said discussions took place, however it was pointed out by the Seventh
Respondent that any possible state funeral is conducted gratuitously as the late former President
enjoyed no benefits and the same was subject to the acceptance by the family.’

[83] At the meeting held on 10 June 2025 at the City Lodge, Waterfalls, the family
denied that the current President would preside over the state funeral. It was
proposed only that the current President onl y be allowed to receive foreign
dignitaries and could be present at the funeral where foreign heads of state would be
present. The current President was not to play any further role in the burial
proceedings.

[84] At the meeting held on 14 June 2025 at the Southern Sun Hotel, Sandton, the
Zambian Government made reference to FAA7 as a programme that was agreed
upon. The family denied that the program was drawn up by the Zambian
Government and stated that FAA7 was drawn up by the family and given to the

38


Zambian Government at the meeting. The family averred that the programme
showed that the current President was not to play any role in the burial. The first
appellant stated categorically:
‘AD PARAGRAPH 7.11 TO 7.12 THEREOF
25.1 It is denied that the program was drawn up by the Applicant.
25.2 The proposed program attached as Annexure ‘F AA7’ was in fact drawn up by the family and
not the Applicant. This program was given to the Applicant at the meeting by the seventh
respondent.
25.3 The program shows that the current President was not to play any role in the burial.’

[85] For the sake of completeness I set out the contents of annexure ‘FAA7’.
‘Program for Repatriation, funeral and Burial of The 6th Republican President, Dr Edgar Chagwa Lungu.’
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Departure of the Body from Funeral Parlor to Lanseria Airport,
Arrival of body at Lanseria Airport
Family and body depart Lanseria Aboard a Private Charter.
Arrival at Lusaka and receiving of the Body at KKIA by family
Military honours
Departure for the house in Chifwema where the body will lay in
state.

Thursday 19th June 2025 Departure of Body from Funeral house in Chifwema to
Mulungushi Conference centre old wing.
Prayer and commencement of body viewing from 09:00 to 16:00
Return of the body to Chifwema to lay in state
Friday 20th June 2025 Departure of Body from Funeral house in Chifwema to
Mulungushi Conference Centre old wing.
Prayer and commencement of body viewing from 09:00 to 16:00
Return of the body to Chifwema to lay in state
Saturday 20th June 2025 Departure of Body from Funeral house in Chifwema to
Mulungushi Conference centre old wing.
Prayer and commencement of body viewing from 09:00 to 16:00
Return of the body to Chifwema to lay in state

39


Sunday 21st June 2025 State Funeral at Mulungushi conference centre hosting foreign
dignitaries
Monday 22nd - valedictory session at the Supreme Court
- Church service by Bishop Allick Banda at Showgrounds Burial.
1. National mourning to be extended
2. The body to always lay in state at Chifwema
3. The body to always be accompanied by a relative, the ADC and Dr…
4. Parties will consult and agree on who speaks at all events.
5. Hon. Given Lubinda to speak on behalf of the Patriotic Front Party.’

[86] It shall be noted that FAA7 does not allocate any speakers except the mention
of Bishop Banda who will conduct the church service. That is not surprising because
in FAA7 it is stated “ Parties will consult and agree on who speaks at all events”. In
response to paragraph 8 of the supplementary founding affidavit, where the Zambian
Government listed matters agreed upon on 14 June 2025 at Southern Sun Hotel,
Sandton, which were: the repatriation of the late President’s mortal remains on 18
June 2025 aboard a chartered aircraft that would depart from Lanseria Airport; the
body would lay in state in Chifwema; the burial wo uld take place on 23 June 2026
at Embassy Memorial Park, a requiem mass would be presided over by Archbishop
Banda of Lusaka; a joint statement would be issued on 15 June 2025 by the Secretary
to the Cabinet and Mr Zulu; the first appellant stated:
‘AD PARAGRAPH 8 ( INCLUDING THE SUB PARAGRAPHS) THEREOF
26.1The parties agreed upon the implementation of Annexure “F AA7” on 14 June 2025.’

[87] At the meeting of 15 June 2025 at the Rivonia Southern Sun Hotel, the
‘speakers outlined a roadmap which made it clear that all subscribed to what was
agreed during the meeting of 14 June 2025’. The Zambian Government dealt with a
transcript of a video attached as FAA9. At that briefing the Television presenter was

40


Mr Ziligone; Mr Enock Kavindele, Zambia’s Vice President and Mr Haimbe, the
Zambian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mr Zulu, the spokesperson for the family.

[88] They highlight that in FAA9 the parties agreed to the following :
‘9.2.1 a state funeral shall be held and shall be presided over by the President of the Republic of
Zambia, His Excellency Mr Hakainde Hichilema culminating in the former president’s burial on
23 June 2025.
9.2.2 the mourning period was officially extended by 9 days, from 15 June to 23 June 2025.’

[89] It further stated that the Seventh Respondent who was present during the joint
briefing, confirmed the above agreement. In response to the allegations the family
stated:
‘AD PARAGRAPH 9 ( including the sub paragraphs) THEREOF:
27.1 The speakers did outline a roadmap based on Annexure “FAA7”.
27.2 Again, it is evident that the Applicant is attempting to mislead the Honourable Court. Annexures
F AA9, F AA10 and F A11 indicates that the Seventh respondent conveyed the agreement as outlined in
Annexure F AA7 to the Applicant.
27.3 The funeral would not be presided over by the current President.
27.4 Annexure FAA10 is a transcript of a press briefing given by the Seventh Respondent and correctly
outlined the correct factual position at that stage.
27.4.2 It is important to emphasize that the family is proceeding based on the guarantees given by the
Government of the Republic of Zambia that they not deviate from our agreement or betray the trust of the
family and the wishes of the late President Lungu.’

[90] The family does not dispute the contents of FAA9 at all. They did not deny
the contents of FAA9 or FAA11. They stated that those annexures and FAA10
indicated that the Seventh Respondent (its spokesperson) conveyed the agreement
as outlined in FAA7 to the Applicant (the Zambian Government).

41


[91] In FAA9 , the transcript of the news ZNBC on 15 June 2025 recorded that Mr
Kangwa, Secretary to the Cabinet, confirmed at the briefing that:
‘Now in accordance with the family’s wishes and the dignity befitting the service of the sixth
President to our nation, a state funeral shall be held and shall be presided over by the President of
the Republic of Zambia, Mr Hakainde Hichilema, culminating in the former president’s burial on
Monday 23rd June 2025.
The President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Hakainde Hichilema , has officially extended the
mourning period by nine days from today, the 15 th June 2025 , to 23 rd June 2025 , the date of
burial.’

[92] A transcribers certificate by Lee Smith Recording & Transcription Services
certified the recording as a true and correct transcription of the sound file. It bears
the date of the recording as 15 June 2025, duration 00:05:34 , reference ZNBC News
Broadcast.

[93] What is contained in FAA9 is confirmed in FAA11, which is a transcript of a
ZANIS News broadcast held on 15 June 2025, the TV presenter is Mr Henry
Himoonde. The same Zambian Government officials referred to in FAA9, w ere
present together with Mr Makebi Zulu (Mr Zulu) for the family and Bishop Joshua
Banda. It shall be recalled that according to the wishes of the late former President,
Bishop Banda was to preside over the church service. That was also recorded in
FAA7.

[94] It was confirmed at that briefing by Mr Kangwa that: the arrangements for the
repatriation of and the burial of the late former President had been concluded;
according to the family’s wishes and the dignity befitting the service of the late
President, a state funeral shall be presided over by the current President of Zambia
and the late President’s burial on 23 June 2025, that the current President had

42


officially extended the mourning period by nine days from today, the 15 th of June
2025 to the 23rd June 2025, the date of burial.

[95] Mr Zulu spoke immediately after Mr Kangwa and stated :
‘The family of the former president, Edgar Chagwa Lungu, who passed away in South Africa on
the 5th of June 2025 , wishes to announce that it has reached agreement with representatives of the
government on the repatriation of the remains of the late former president, as well as his funeral
and burial programme. This follows the resolution of the impasse that had caused disagreement
between the two parties.
We wish to thank the former heads of state in the SADC region and head of state in the SADC
region for their intervention in this matter. We also wish to thank the clergy that took time to engage
for the final resolution in this matter.’

[96] These responses demonstrate without a doubt and contrary to the findings in
the majority judgment that, the agreement in FAA7 was pleaded. The family
understood and accepted that the agreement is in FAA7 referred to i n certain
paragraphs ‘as a roadmap agreed upon’. Most importantly, just like the Zambian
Government the family also relied on FAA9, FAA10 and FAA11 as media briefings
and videos conveying the agreement to the members of the public and in particular
the peo ple of Zambia. All those documents viewed together, both textually and
contextually, confirm what is outlined as agreement between the parties and outlined
in Annexure FAA7 on 14 June 2025. Mr Zulu, who was present at those briefings,
did not dispute the r ecordings as false. Because there were negotiations on various
issues and in particular the issue of the presence of the current President at the funeral
FAA7 was conveyed in Annexures FAA9, FAA10 and FAA11, according to the
family. The admissions made by the family support the Zambian Government case
that there was indeed an agreement between them.

43


[97] The family may have been averse to the presence of the current President and
to him playing a role at the late former President’s funeral at some point but that was
resolved and specifically confirmed in FAA 9, FAA 10 and FAA11 (which qualify
as contemporaneous recordings) as demonstrated above. The family cannot adopt
two mutually exclusive versions, with respect, by confirming the agreement in FAA7
and as conveyed in FAA9, FAA10 and FAA11, and before this Court deny that there
was an agreement and insist that the current President was not to play any role. That
is not borne out by the facts referred to above and the documentary evidence on
record. It follows that the family’s contentions that are contrary to what is evinced
in the documents that it itself relies on must be rejected.

[98] In Endumeni, this Court summarised the trite principles of interpretation: As
a process of attributing meaning to the words used either in a contract or legislation,
by considering the language used in the light of the ordinary rules of grammar and
syntax; the context in which the provision appears; the apparent purpose to which it
is directed and the material known to those responsible for its production’.26

[99] In the majority judgment it is suggested that the broadcasts comprised of
‘sound bites transcripts’ and what transpired was that Mr Zulu’s comments from his
press conference were ‘spliced’ into the news broadcasts as part of the overall
coverage on the issue. In the majority judgment a conclusion is made that while the
transcripts give the impression that Mr Zulu’s comments were made in the presence
of Mr K angwa and in response to his announcement, this is in fact not so. It is
concluded in the majority jud gment that the transcripts are not evidence of the
family’s agreement to a state funeral presided over by President Hichilema. It is not

26 Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality [2012] ZASCA 13; [2012] 2 All SA 262 (SCA);

2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA) (Endumeni) para 18.

44


apparent to me how this finding was made because the family admits all the
transcripts as I have demonstrated with refe rence to the pleadings above. The
authenticity of the broadcasts was never questioned before the High Court or before
this Court. As mentioned before the family just like the Zambian Government relied
on the broadcasts and videos in support of the agreemen t. There are transcriber
certificates in respect of each broadcast, how and when the alleged ‘splicing’ would
have occurred and why the family did not raise it, makes the finding in the majority
judgment, with respect, unfounded and not supported by any evidence. Crucially, it
was never raised with any of the parties in argument. I find that the transcripts of the
recordings are reliable.

[100] I now wish to conclude on the agreement aspect. The Zambian Government
rested its entitlement to repatriate the body of the late former President based on the
agreement it concluded with the family, on the Benefits Act and on the public policy
of Zambia. As mentioned before the reliance on the Benefits Act was abandoned.
The public policy of Zambia does not find application since South African laws are
applicable. I have found that there was agreement between the parties. A burial of
the late former President in South Africa is not only against the late former
President’s w ishes but it is against the agreement between the parties as
demonstrated above. The rights of the family were never undermined by the
Zambian Government . It sent various delegations to negotiate with the family
because it realized and respected the family ’s autonomy to decide on the burial of
the late President. There is no case made out on the infringement of any of the
family’s rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights. In Beadica 231 CC and Others v
Trustees for the time being of the Oregon Trust and Othe rs (Beadica)27 the

27 Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees for the time being of the Oregon Trust and Others [2020] ZACC13; 2020

(5) SA 247 (CC); 2020 (9) BCLR 1098 (CC) (Beadica) para 92.

45


Constitutional Court found that the freedom of contract is based on the constitutional
values of freedom and dignity and is vital for economic development to achieve the
constitutional vision of South African society.

[101] The majority judgment places significant weight on the constitutional rights
of the family to dignity and family autonomy, and on the principle that courts must
guard against the exercise of excessive state power over private individuals. I do not
dispute that these rights are engaged whenever a dispute concerns decisions about
burial. Nor do I dispute that the family, as foreign nationals present in South Africa,
is entitled to rely on the protections of the Bill of Rights. Where I differ is on how
those rights were affected on the particular facts of this case.

[102] The family's rights to dignity and autonomy did not require them to enter into
an agreement with the Zambian Government. Those rights are precisely what
entitled them to negotiate, to insist on conditions and to withhold consent until they
were satisfied with the terms. They exercised that autonomy freely across several
meetings. When agreement was ultimately reached on 14 June 2025, it was
agreement that expressly reflected the wishes of the late former President Lungu and
those of the family. It is the agreement the family announced publicly to the Zambian
people as their own.

[103] To permit the family to resile from that agreement on the grounds that their
dignity and autonomy entitle them to change their minds would, in effect, allow
constitutional rights to serve as a shield against the ordinary consequences of
voluntary choices. The Constitutional Court rejected that approach in Beadica.
Freedom and dignity are not undermined by holding parties to agreements they

46


freely concluded; they are undermined by allowing one party to treat a concluded
contract as non -binding whenever it be comes inconvenient. As the Constitutional
Court observed in Beadica, the public policy imperative to enforce voluntarily
undertaken contractual obligations is itself an expression of the constitutional values
of freedom and dignity.

[104] Nor am I persuaded that this is properly characterised as a case of state power
pressing down on private rights. The Zambian Government did not compel the
family to negotiate. It did not dictate the terms of the agreement. It accepted the
family’s conditions, for example , thos e including the private charter, the lying in
state at Chifwema and the consultation on speakers. When the family resiled from
that agreement on the morning of 18 June 2025, the Zambian Government had no
other avenue available to it than approaching the court. Seeking judicial enforcement
of a concluded contract is not the exercise of excessive state power. It is the exercise
of a right available to any contracting party in a constitutional democracy that
recognises the rule of law and the enforceability of agreements.

[105] On 19 June 2025, the President of Zambia announced to the Zambian nation
the decision of the family and that the family failed to honour the agreement that the
late President’s body be repatriated for a state funeral. It is that breach that
necessitated the launching of the application, with Zambian Government seeking, in
the main, a declarator that it is entitled to repatriate the body of the late former
President for purposes of a state funeral and burial thereafter at the Embassy Park,
Lusaka. Therefore, the balancing of rights issue does not arise. When the family
reneged there was no other remedy to the Zambian Government other than
approaching court.

47



[106] Once the agreement was reached as I have found, the Zambian Government
implemented it in several ways which are not disputed: (a) a permit to repatriate the
human remains was issued on 16 June 2025 by Dr George Sinyangwe, a Permanent
Secretary, Ministry of Health, Lusaka; (b ) a request was made by the High
Commission of the Republic of Zambia, Commissioner Inonge Mwenya, to Two
Mountains funeral parlour on 16 June 2025 for assistance with repatriation; (c) the
repatriation was announced by the Secretary of Cabinet for the ben efit of the
Zambian nation on 17 June 2025; (d) a letter from the Director -General of Health,
South Africa, Dr SSS Buthelezi, was issued giving permission for the exportation of
the human remains; (e) a site -planning meeting was held at Lanseria Airport wi th
family representatives and officials from the Zambia High Commission, DIRCO and
the South African National Defence Force; (f) the mourning period was extended by
nine days; (g) a public road was refurbished to facilitate access by mourners; (h)
public press statements were made by the Secretary of Cabinet; and (i) a burial place
was prepared, a photograph of which forms part of the record.

[107] The body of the late former President has been lying in a funeral parlour for a
year. All these factors are sufficient to support the contention that it is in the public
interest that the agreement between the parties be given effect to. The agreement
caters for the wishes of the late former President and those of the family as conveyed
to the people of Zambia.

48


[108] Mr M agezi E Baloyi 28 discussed in an article how death and funerals are
uniting factors in African communities. He wrote that an African funeral is a very
social event for the entire community in which the deceased lived, and that ‘death,
amongst other things, is a uniting factor and discussed how death invites people into
a family, regardless of bad blood, flawed relationships and separation ‘

[109] In Barkhuizen v Napier NO,29 the Constitutional Court confirmed:
‘I do not understand the Supreme Court of Appeal as suggesting that the principle of contract pacta
sunt servanda is a sacred cow that should trump all other considerations. That it did not, is apparent
from the judgment. The Supreme Court of Appeal accepted that the constitutional values of
equality and dignity may, however, prove to be decisive when the issue of the parties’ relative
bargaining positions is an issue. All law, including the common law of contract, is now subject to
constitutional control. The validity of all law depends on their consistency with the p rovisions of
the Constitution and the values that underlie our Constitution. The application of the
principle pacta sunt servanda is, therefore, subject to constitutional control.’

[110] The proper approach as stated in Barkhuizen30 and confirmed in Beadica31 is
to determine whether the enforcement of the agreement: by way of the repatriation
of the mortal remains of the former President and him being accorded a state funeral

28 Baloyi M E. (2014). In an article titled: ‘Distance no impediment for funerals: death as a uniting ritual for African
people- A pastoral study, published in the Department of Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology, University
of South Africa, South Africa, Verbum et Ecclesia (online V ol.35) N.1 Pretoria, he wrote that: ‘An African funeral is
a very social event for the entire community in which the deceased lived. Regardless of whether the deceased was a

Christian or not, death has always been a reunion for long- separated relatives, believers and non- believers. Nowadays,
tents, cars and the gathering of multitudes of people demonstrate how death can bring people together, irrespective of
distance and relationships. Of course, this is not to deny the fact that death can be a cause of division between relatives
and friends. Nonetheless, the funeral itself is also a uniting factor; many people come together, regardless of distance,
to pay their last tributes to the deceased and to provide the ber eaved family with emotional support. In this article, I
argue that death, amongst other things, is a uniting factor that is able to bring people, who are separated by distance
and other factors, together. The aim of this article is to discuss how death inv ites people into a family, regardless of
bad blood, flawed relationships and separation.’
29 Barkhuizen v Napier [2007] ZACC 5; 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC); 2007 (7) BCLR 691 (CC) (Barkhuizen) para 15.
30 Barkhuizen para 70.
31 Beadica fn 27 above para 71.

49


and the agreed program, is inimical to the values that underlie our constitutional
democracy, as given expression to in section 34 and thus contrary to public policy32.
A short answer is that in light of the agreement in FAA7 read with FAA9, FAA10
and FAA11, between the parties, it is apparent that the parties considered not only
the wishes of the late former President but those of the family and the Zambian
nation. The agreement also considers the interests of the Zambian community and
thus does not offend public policy.

[111] The Constitutional Court in Beadica33 stated:
‘The public policy impe rative to enforce contractual obligations that have been voluntarily
undertaken recognizes the autonomy of the contracting parties and, in so doing, gives effect to the
central constitutional values of freedom and dignity. This imperative provides the req uisite legal
certainty to allow persons to arrange their affairs in reliance on the undertakings of the other parties
to a contract, and to coordinate their conduct for their mutual benefit.’

[112] For all the above reasons I find that there are no grounds to interfere with the
decision of the High Court. It follows that the appeal must fail. Had I commanded
the majority, I would have dismissed the appeal. In so far as costs are concerned, I
would also follow the approach adopted by the High Court and make no order as to
costs.

____________________
T V NORMAN
JUDGE OF APPEAL



33 Beadica fn 27 above para 92.

50


Appearances:
For the Appellants: T Ngcukaitobi SC with N Qwabe
Instructed by: Mashele Attorneys Incorporated, Johannesburg
Moroka Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For First Respondent: B C Stoop SC with A A R Marques
Instructed by: VFV Attorneys, Pretoria
Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein.