MBABANE – A couple whose marriage was marked by alleged violence, threats and a breakfast dispute has divorced after living apart for more than 13 years.
The High Court granted Samkeliso Maphanga’s application for divorce after Judge Nkosinathi Maseko found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Samkeliso and Lomagugu Maphanga married under civil law and in community of property on October 20, 2006.
According to the judgment, problems arose early in the marriage and the couple separated around March 11, 2012. Samkeliso, represented by Mxolisi Dlamini of Dynasty Inc. Attorneys, issued divorce summons on June 25, 2014. He sought restoration of conjugal rights and, failing that, a final decree of divorce. He also sought forfeiture of benefits arising from the marriage in community of property, reasonable visitation rights concerning their minor child and costs.
The court heard that the parties had not lived as husband and wife since March 11, 2012. However, they gave different accounts of the dispute that led to their separation. Samkeliso testified that he asked his wife to prepare breakfast on the morning of March 11, 2012. He alleged that she protested that she was not his maid, which angered him.
Lomagugu disputed his account. She testified that Samkeliso had attended an umphakatsi meeting about land matters on March 10, 2012, and returned home visibly angry. She said he did not respond when she asked him about the meeting. When she raised the matter again the following morning, he allegedly became angry and threw her belongings outside while it was raining.
Lomagugu, represented by Machawe Tfwala of K.Q. Magagula Attorneys, called her sister, who went to the matrimonial home to establish what had happened. According to the evidence, Samkeliso told the sister that he wanted nothing to do with Lomagugu. Her brother was then called to collect her and her belongings. The families later held meetings in an effort to reconcile the couple.
During one meeting, Lomagugu’s uncle instructed her to return home and ahlale ngentfombi, meaning she should preserve her purity and integrity by not engaging in adulterous relationships. The court also heard conflicting evidence about the parties’ conduct during the marriage. Lomagugu described Samkeliso as extremely violent and short-tempered. She alleged that he had assaulted her on numerous occasions and said she reported the alleged assaults at Mbabane Police Station.
Samkeliso, meanwhile, testified about conduct he said contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. He claimed Lomagugu verbally abused him and, during one disagreement, told him she had fallen in love with him only because her sister advised her to do so. He also alleged that she called him a fool, poor and uneducated, and slept on a mat whenever they disagreed.
Samkeliso further testified that, during the March 11, 2012 incident and in the presence of Lomagugu’s younger sister, she told him to hang himself in the forest. He alleged that she threatened to send people to burn him in the house if he did not do so. He said the alleged threats made him fear for his life and that he reported them to the police.
Judge Maseko noted that the parties disputed each other’s accounts and found that both were guilty of malicious and constructive desertion. The court also considered compensation Lomagugu received from the South African Road Accident Fund (RAF) while the couple lived apart.
The judgment states that Lomagugu received about R900 000. Samkeliso testified that he had assisted her extensively while she processed the claim in South Africa. He told the court that the money was not used to improve the matrimonial home, but to upgrade Lomagugu’s parental homestead at Sidwashini.
Lomagugu produced a First National Bank statement dated October 2, 2025, showing a credit balance of R47 012.97. The judge found that the RAF compensation formed part of the joint estate because Lomagugu received it while the marriage still existed. The court also considered evidence that Samkeliso had assisted with Lomagugu’s transport to Johannesburg while she and her mother were engaged in hawking.
According to the judgment, Lomagugu did not disclose the compensation to Samkeliso and used the money to renovate her parental home. The court further considered Samkeliso’s conduct after the separation. It was common cause that he had a minor child with another woman.
Judge Maseko found that this amounted to adultery because the child was born out of wedlock and the pleadings did not include a plea for condonation. “The conduct of both parties had contributed to the collapse of the marriage. The plaintiff had repeatedly stated that he wanted nothing to do with the respondent, including during family meetings and in his evidence before court. At the same time, the respondent testified that she loved him and wanted to return to the matrimonial home,” states the judgment.
Judge Maseko found that the parties’ conduct showed the marriage had deteriorated beyond redemption. The court considered the legal principles governing malicious and constructive desertion. These include authorities stating that constructive desertion may arise when one spouse’s conduct makes continued married life dangerous or intolerable and is accompanied by an intention to end the relationship.
Judge Maseko also considered whether to order the restoration of conjugal rights. He found that such an order would be inappropriate, particularly in light of the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act of 2018.
The judgment states that the conduct alleged by both parties was later criminalised under the legislation. Compelling them to resume living together could, therefore, create circumstances in which criminal proceedings might arise.
The court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that there was no prospect of reconciliation.
Judge Maseko granted a final decree of divorce on the grounds of both parties’ constructive and malicious desertion, as well as Samkeliso’s adultery resulting in the birth of a child out of wedlock. The court further ruled that the umphakatsi was the appropriate authority to determine the status of the matrimonial home because it was built on Swazi Nation Land. The parties were directed, through their attorneys, to arrange visitation rights concerning their minor child. The court ordered each party to retain the movable property in his or her possession.
Leave a comment