PRAKTYK EN PROSEDURE

Opsomming:

Eiser het sekere boedelbates geeisen na wysiging van sy dagvaardingwas die pleitstukke nie gesluit nie. Eiser en sy getuies het getuienis afgele en dit wasonbestrede.

Op

laasgenoemde stadium het die Bantoesakekommissaris uit- spraak van absolusie gelewer op aansoek van Verweerders.

Gehou:

Dat uitspraak van absolusie nie regverdig was op die stadiumwaaropditgelewerwasnie.

Sakewaarna verwysis:

Mzimela

andothers versusMzimela, 1960.N.A.C.80.

100

Staden versusPrinsloo, 1947,S.A.L.R.842.

Bee versus Railway Passengers Assurance Co., 1947, (4>

S.A.L.R.356.

Goosen

versus Stevenson, 1932,T.P.D.223.

Wetgewing waarna verwysis:

Goewermentskennisgewing No. 1664 van 1929.

Appel van die Bansoesakekommissarishof, Morgenson.

Craig,

Waarnemende

Voorsitter:

—

Volgens

my

mening wasdaar geen regverdigingvirdieuitspraak vanabsolusieop diestadiumwaaropditgelewerwasnie.

Op

15

November

1963 het Eiser se prokureur aansoek gedoen

om

sydagvaarding volgens ’n kennisgewing gedateer 7

November

1963 te wysigen nieteenstaande diefeit dat Verweerderse proku- reur aangegee het dat hy geen beswaar daarteen

maak

nie, het die Bantoesakekommissaris geen beslissing op die geskilpunt gelewernie.

Maar

seifsas dit aangeneem

word

dat hy die aan- soek toegestaan het (en sy skriftelike uitspraak gee aan dat hy, tenfeite, so gedoen het) was^dit klaarblyklik met dien verstande dat die Verweerders kans sou he

om

^hulle pleitstukke te wysig,

maar

watnie gedoen was teen dietyd van aansoek

om

^absolusie

deur hulle prokureur nie. Die pleitskrifte was dus nie gesluit nieennet virdaardie rede alleen moes dieKommissarisdie aan- soekvandiehand gewyshet.

Ditisvir

my

nieduidelik

hoekom

die Eiser,

om

teslaag,bevind dat dit nodig is

om

te wys dat Verweerders op bedrieglike of onwettige wyse te werk gegaan het nie. Indien dit bevind

word

dat die Eiser die regmatige erfgenaam is en derhalwe die eienaar van die nalatingskap is,

maak

dit nie saak welke middele deur die Verweerders aangewend ^is

om

die boedelbates te verkry nie.

’n Regmatige eienaarisgeregtig

om

syeiendom tevindikeer tensy die besitters daarvanhulle regtedaaropkanbewys.

Die feit datdie Assistent Bantoesakekommissaris te Morgenson blykbaar beslis het op 4 Januarie 1961, dat Eerste Verweerder oorledene seerfgenaam was, verskaf nie die laaste woord op die geskilpunt nie.

Ek

twyfel dat die verrigtinge ingehandig as Bewysstuk ^“

A

^”, geld as ’n ondersoek soos beoog deur artikel 3 (2) van Goewermentskennisgewing No. 1664 van 1929. Dit blyk dat die Assistent Kommissaris wie opgetree het, aangeneem het dat Eerste Verweerder die erfgenaam was weens die blote feit dathy die“ Sterfkennis ” en die“_Inventaris” geteken hetas

“Oudsteseun vanoorledene ”enten spytevandieverklaringvan Roslina

Ngwenya

dat “

Toe

oorledenevirJotham Zulu^se moeder, Ndhlovu,gekoop het, het hy ookvirJotham betaal”

(my onder- streping). Dit

mag

wel wees dat Eerste Verweerder ’n buite- egtelike kind is en, volgens Bantoereg. nie geregtig is

om

^te erf nie. Verder is ek bewus van die feit dat oorledene se eerste huwelik’n siviele huwelik wasen asdaardie vrou nog ^lewe,

mag

die bepalings van artikel 2 van bogemelde Goewermentskennis- gewing van toepassing wees.

As

’n getwis ontstaan,

moes

artikel drie (3)van die Kennisgewing opgeroep

word

endit blyk datiets

van daardie aard gebeur het. onwetend miskien. in die huidige saak (sien

Mzimela

andothers versusMzimela, 1960, N.A.C. 80).

Diegetuienisdeur enten batevan Eiserten dieneffektedathy die enigste oorlewende manlike afstammeling van oorledeneis,is onbestrede.

Hy

het die bewyslas genoegsaam gekwyt

om

’n uit- spraak van absolusie te

voorkom

[Staden versus Prinsloo, 1947, S.A.L.R. 842 en Bee versus Railway Passengers Assurance Co., 1947(4),S.A.L.R. 356],en dieprimafacie saakwathygestig het, vereis ’n antwoord (Goosen versus Stevenson, 1932 T.P.D. 223).

As

dit nie was dat die pleitskrifte nie gesluit was nie,

mag

^’n uitspraak van absolusietengunstevan

Tweede

Verweerdermiskien regverdig gewees het aangesien die enigste getuienis wat geopper~

101

was dat sy sogenaamde beskermling enigiets van die bates ver- wyderhet, blyklikophoorse gebaseeris.

Met

verwysing na die Kennisgewing van Appel ^is daar klaar- blyklik niks op die rekord

om

Appellant se bewering dat Sara Zulu (Manana), op 4Januarie 1964(of op4 Januarie 1961) voor- gehou het dat Eerste Verweerder die enigste erfgenaam was, te regverdignie.

Verweerders se prokureur het gefouteer

om

aansoek te

doen om

^{absolusie voordat hy die} pleitskrifte gesluit het en die

Kom-

missarishetgefouteer

om

die aansoektoetestaan.

Volgens

my

mening moet die appel slaag met koste en die Bantoesakekommissarisse uitspraakverander

word

tot“

Aansoek om

^absolusievandiehand gewys^”,

Die saak moet terugverwys word na die Bantoesakekommis*

saris virverdereverhoor naafsluitingvandiepleitskrifte.

Maraisen Chatterton, Lede,stem saam.

Vir Appellant: Adv. D.

Kuny

in opdrag van mnr. D. L. de Jager.

VirRespondent: Adv.J.D.

M.

Swartinopdragvanmnr.E.

W

Pienaar.

NORTH-EASTERN BANTU APPEAL COURT.

NDHLOVU

vs.

PHETHA.

B.A.C.

CASE

No. 37 of 1964.

Pietermaritzburg: 6th August, 1964. Before Cowan, President:

CraigandParsons,

Members

oftheCourt.

BANTU LAW AND ^CUSTOM.

Ngqutu

cattle

—

ownership.

Summary:

Plaintiff, a

woman

dulyassistedbyher son,sued for the return of seven head of cattle attached for her son’s debt on the ground that they were her property being progeny of the ngqutu beasts paid for her three daughters.

It transpired that two of the girls were daughters of the deceased indhlunkulu wife towhose house Plaintiff had been affiliated andthatfiveof the cattleclaimed were progeny of ngqutu beasts paid for them.

The

third girl was, in fact, the daughter ofPlaintiff.

Held: That the ownership of the five head of cattle vested in the indhlunkulu of which Plaintiff’s son was heir and that theywererightlyattachedfor hisdebt.

Legislation ferred to:

NatalBantu

Code

Sections3^(a)and₉₆(4).

Appeal from the Court of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner,.

Camperdown.

Craig, Permanent

Member:

—

The

Plaintiff, dulyassisted by her son, Velekhaya Phetha. sued for the return of seven head ofcattle, or their value, which had been attached in satisfaction of a judgment given against Vele- khaya. She alleged she was the lawful owner of such cattle as they were theprogeny ofcertain ngqutu beastswhich were given to her in respect of the marriages of certain of her daughters.

102

It is undisputed that Plaintiff's “house”, a junior one, was

affiliatedto theindhlunkulu of her latehusband and that, onthe failure of the latter house to produce male issue but only seven

daughters,Velekhaya becamethe heir thereto.

On

Plaintiff’s

own

admission two of the “ daughters” (Puzani and Kadenzeka) whose ngqutubeasts sheclaims as her

own

were not so related to her but are the natural daughters of the deceased indhlunkulu wife. Plaintiff has no right whatever to these cattle, which account for five of those in dispute, on the basis ofngqutuasclaimedbyher.

The

contention of Mr. Menge,

who

appeared for the Respon- dent (Plaintiff) in this Court, that Plaintiff, because of affiliation of her house, became to all intents and purposes the mother of the girls Puzani and Kadenzeka on the death of their natural mother was reiected.

The

purpose of affiliation vide Section 3 (a)of the Natal Bantu

Code

is to provide against failure ofan heir in the senior house to which the junior is attached.

The

rights to the ngqutu cattle which Mr.

Menge

sought to establish for Plaintiff are not provided for. explicitly or impliedly, by the Code.

These five cattle are, in terms of Section 96 (4) of the Natal Bantu

Code

the property ofthe indhlunkulu of which Velekhaya

is the heir and were rightly attached in reduction of his debt to the Defendant whose appeal in respect ofthem must succeed.

The

othertwo cattleare, allegedly,progeny of thengqutu beast of Plaintiff’s

own

daughter Lena and ^the onus was on Plaintiff to establish the allegation on a balance of probabilities.

The

Commissioner wasfavourably impressed by Plaintiff

whom

he found was actingundercompulsion at the time of the attach- ment. If she were, which is doubtful, she kept her wits about her sufficiently to ensure that onlythe smallest cattlewere taken.

At notime during the attachment did sheresist it on the ground thatthe cattle werehers by virtueofthe ngqutu custom thoughit is on record that she resisted successfully the attachment of a black

cow

with a white spot on its side on the ground that it

was a ngqutu beast. Plaintiff's evidence as to the progeny of Lena’s ngqutu beast was vague and in no

way

complicated. It

wasa simple matterto saythat ithad had quite alot ofincrease and that of such increase a black and white bullock and a black bullock were attached. Velekhaya’s knowledge of Lena’s ngqutu beast is based on hearsay and he gave no details of its progeny.

Because of the unsatisfactory circumstances outlined above Plaintiffcannot be said to have dischargedthe onus which rested

upon

her. In the absence, however, of refutation by Defendant of what she did say he should have been absolved from the instance.

In the result the appeal ^is allowed with costs and the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s judgment is altered to “For the Defen- dant for the five head of cattle allegedly the progeny of the ngqutu beasts of Puzani and Kadenzeka. Defendant is absolved from the instance in respect of the two head of cattle allegedly the progeny of the ngqutu beast of Plaintiff’s daughter Lena.

Plaintiffto pay costs.”

Cowan,

President,andParsons,

Member,

concur.

For Appellant: Adv. P.

Roux

instructed by Cowley

&

^Cowley.

For Respondent: Adv.

W.

O. H.

Menge

instructed by Randles, Davis

& Wood.

NORTH-EASTERN BANTU APPEAL COURT.

MBATA AND OTHERS

vs.

KCBEKA.

B.A.C.

CASE

No. 41 of 1964.

Pietermaritzburg: 6th August, 1964.

Cowan.

President, Craig andParsons, Members.