MBABANE – The High Court has dismissed an urgent application seeking to halt the funeral of a 101-year-old man, whose burial became the subject of a legal feud between his surviving wives.
Judge Justice Mavuso dismissed the application yesterday because Mshengu Lucu Gama, who was married to three women, but one passed away, had prepared a Will stipulating that he wanted to be buried at the homestead of LaNyamane, the third wife. In the Will, he referred to LaNyamane’s homestead as the main homestead. The first wife, LaDlamini, argued that the third wife’s residence cannot be the main homestead.
The applicant, LaDlamini, sought an urgent interdict to restrain Dups Funeral Home from releasing the deceased’s remains and to stop LaNyamane from proceeding with the burial scheduled for today. LaDlamini contended that the burial should be stayed pending the determination of the dispute by traditional authorities at the Mcengeni Royal Kraal.
In her founding affidavit, she argued that as the first wife, married in 1948, she held a prima facie right to be involved in the burial arrangements under Eswatini Law and Custom. She alleged that LaNyamane, the youngest wife with whom the deceased resided at the time of his death on February 5, 2026, was excluding the other two households from the process.
“I humbly submit that even though the deceased passed on February 5, 2026, the Gama and Dlamini families have been attempting to hold family meeting with the first respondent’s family members, but the latter was avoiding and/or delaying to have the important family meeting because the first respondent was flagging a purported and undated Will, in which it was recorded that the first respondent has a right to bury the deceased at the main homestead,” argued LaDlamini.
The applicant challenged the validity of an undated Will lodged with the Master’s Office in 2019. The Will stipulated that Mshengu be buried at the homestead of the third wife, describing it as the main homestead. LaDlamini characterised this document as ‘purported and undated’, noting that at the time of its lodgement, the deceased was 94 years old and allegedly incapable of writing, as evidenced by a thumbprint signature. She further argued that no formal family meeting (kufukama) had been convened to discuss the burial, and that LaNyamane had ignored subpoenas to attend a meeting at the Emcengeni Royal Kraal.
LaNyamane, represented by Mayibongwe Mntungwa of Dynasty Inc. Attorneys, raised several preliminary objections regarding the technical and substantive merits of the application. The primary submission was that the court could not ignore a Will unless a formal application had been made to set it aside. Mntungwa argued that in accordance with the principles of freedom of testation, the court must uphold the express wishes of the deceased. He noted that the Will specifically stated: ‘I want to be buried at kaLaNyamane because that is the main homestead’.
Furthermore, Mntungwa argued that the application was fatally defective. He pointed out a chronological discrepancy: the court application bore the registrar’s stamp from February 12, 2026, yet the supporting affidavit was only signed and commissioned on the morning of February 13, 2026. He argued that at the time of registration, there was no valid supporting affidavit in existence.
Mntungwa also challenged the authenticity of the applicant’s thumbprint on the court document. He noted that in terms of the law, a thumbprint must be accompanied by an affidavit from the Commissioner of Oaths confirming its authenticity (typically marked as RTP for ‘right thumbprint’), which was absent in this case. Additionally, the respondent raised the issue of non-joinder, stating that the Mcengeni Royal Kraal, the Master’s Office and other beneficiaries had not been served with the papers.
*Full article available on Pressreader*
Leave a comment