Held: (2) That the custom referred only to another method of achieving the object of the uzzalela customs and there is no doubt that such a custom was followed by Fr. The underlying reason for the custom is to raise an heir and preserve an impotent male and is not considered contrary to the high moral standards of the Zulu people.
NORTH-EASTERN NATIVE APPEAL COURT
SHANDU
NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM
The case centers on the question of whether Mguzu gave part of Tandekile's lobolo to the defendant in exchange for the defendant's contribution of part of his earnings for the maintenance of his kraal, or whether Bibi's house was not part of the indhlunkuhi section of Mguzu's kraal and defendant as heir would be. And finally, it is equally clear that the plaintiff as heir to the second house would be entitled to the c. to be reclaimed. Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the father of the parties – the late Mguzu – entered into a customary union with his second wife Bibia, this did not result in the creation of a second home.
He could cite no decisive case to support his claim, but argued that it was in accordance with Zulu customary law. As to the seventh beast, it was not in dispute that the defendant had borrowed it from the plaintiff personally. In these circumstances it is ordered that the appeal to this Court be dismissed and dismissed with costs, but the NativeCommis-.
MKWANAZI
Magqubuwejaji Manqele gave evidence and said the accused was his son; that Poqekile was his wife before she married Ghebraan and that she ran away from him and a few days later their marriage to Ghebraan took place. It is clear that the Native Commissioner based his judgment on section 31 of the 1932 Act (which must be presumed to apply, although the date of birth of the claimants is not mentioned), but it must be remembered that notwithstanding this section C. In view of the wording of the Native Commissioner's reasons for judgment it is possible that the defendant was not called upon to lead evidence to challenge the truth of the plaintiff's story, as the Native Commissioner felt that it made no difference as long as the defendant had been born after the union between his mother and the ^ முர்கு, and the question arises whether the case should not be sent back to be heard for a conclusion, but the defendant did not challenge any of the plaintiff's witnesses in cross-examination on that point, and it appears to his accepting their version.
TWALA
LAW OF PROCEDURE
A Held: (1) Since there was no record to establish whether, on the evidence adduced in the trial court, there was a possibility that the appeal might succeed; there may have been a good reason why the defendant did not comply with the rules, and the defendant did. At the end of the evidence it is written: “The defendant does not dispute the fact that fifteenhead is the result of the plaintiff, but dis-. As there is no record to confirm whether the appeal was likely to succeed on the basis of the evidence adduced in the High Court, it is not clear how the Home Commissioner decided that this was the case.
Given the possibilities, there could be such a prospect and there could have been a good reason why the suspect did not comply with the rules and because he did make known his intention in a timely manner to appeal against the Chief's decision. to go. The appeal against the refusal of the Native Commissioner to sanction the late notice of the appeal in his Court is allowed and his refusal to sanction the late notice of the appeal in his own. G Court is set aside and replaced by: “The request for forgiveness for the late note has been granted.”
ZONDI
Whether the appellant failed to show good cause for the extension of the period within which to appeal, which good cause the appellant did in fact show; and the learned Native Commissioner, in the reasons of the judgment, actually distinguished the appellant's case from those decided. 4 it is not necessary for the plaintiff to allege or prove that the defendant heir has inherited enough to satisfy a claim arising from the estate. D to claim and prove his position if he wants to rely on the provisions of Article 116 of the Code.
Held: As the appellant had had ample time to consult and brief counsel, the court refused to grant adjournment of arguments. This court called counsel's attention to the fact that appellant signed the hearing (N.A. 149) on March 8, 1956. Having ample time to consult and brief counsel, the court refused to grant adjournment.
DECEASED ESTATES
If the argument is that the testator did not have the power to dispose of the particular property because it is protected by c. It appears that the Master was under the impression that it was necessary to call evidence to show whether the property bequeathed was "house" or "kraal" property, but as the property was immovable there was no need to distinguish or classify it by reason of the provisions of sub-section (9) of section twenty-. It has been pointed out that section 108 (2) of the Natal Code of Native Law (Proclamation No. 168 of 1932) provides that house property cannot be created by Will, but that the proclamation is made under and by virtue of Act No. .
38 of 1927 and clearly cannot override any of the provisions of the Act; If the part of the Proclamation states this, it is to that extent ultra vires. It is clear, therefore, that the property which Will was to declare as conceivable was so conceivable; the assistant native com-. With regard to costs, it is held that the bringing of the action was enjoined on the applicant in the Court below and that in all the circumstances each party should bear his or her own costs.
NORTH-EASTERN NATIVE APPEAT COURT
MOKOTELI
DESERTED WIVES AND CHILDREN ACT
Here it should be noted that despite the summons and findings of the Additional Local Commissioner referring to the two B. Lonea Mokotel, the evidence of B. Lonea Mokotel is clear about the paternity of the children and it remains to be ascertained whether she relies on her evidence, since Tifu has denied her testimony. under oath. Before an order can be made in terms of section three of the relevant act, it must be the local Magistrate or Commissioner.
An examination of the "proved facts" in the Additional Native Commissioner's reasons for judgment shows that he only concerned himself with the question of paternity of the two children of the complainant and it is clear that he made no I finding on the question of their adequate support. The appellant's counsel did not touch on this aspect of the case, but contented himself with an attack on the manner in which the investigation was conducted, the lack of admissible evidence that the appellant was the father of the two children and the disability J .This does not mean that future appropriate action is for the enforcement. of the obligations of the father of the children cannot be fulfilled if circumstances justify such action.
PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE
The only evidence presented is that of the girl's father, the plaintiff, and that of the girl herself. Once after his wife and some other women visited the accused, they also left and the accused denied responsibility. The girl stated that the defendant was to blame for her pregnancy and that she reported to her parents and Mr.
The question to be decided is whether an admission of intimacy at a time when the defendant could not have been responsible H. On the other hand an admission by the defendant J of intercourse at a time, taking into account the possible period of pregnancy, it was impossible for him to be the father, amounts to a denial of intercourse that led to the pregnancy. B The Additional Native Commissioner was not impressed by the defendant's evidence, in the opinion of this Court, and this Court concludes that he decided the case correctly.
MALOKA
On March 14, 1956, the Native Commissioner gave an indefinite judgment in favor of the plaintiffs who prayed with costs. On March 28, 1956, defendant filed a motion to vacate the default judgment. This statement is intended to be in support of a new application to be made on May 9, 1956, for G.
C received instructions not to proceed with the application for condonation and revocation of the sentence. There can be no doubt that the fees deposited were in respect of the second so-called application which did not come before the Court. The emphasis is on the word "also" which only means and can mean that an order for the payment of the money deposited may only be made if and when the application for withdrawal is heard.
SOUTHERN NATIVE APPEAL COURT
In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed, and it is ordered that the mark of appeal is hereby allowed with costs, and the judgment of the Native-Commissioner is amended to read:—.
LAW OF SUCCESSION
It is common cause that the plaintiff in the Convention is the heir to the House of his deceased father, Maqabuka (hereinafter referred to as "the Deceased"), and that the Defendant in the Convention is the eldest son and heir of the deceased in his Højre I Hånd House. Upon the deceased's death, the plaintiff took over the inventory and became the defendant's guardian. The 47 sheep and six goats in dispute all bear the earmark of the deceased's Great House and are therefore his (plaintiff's) property.
88 constituted the proceeds of the sale of wool from the 47 sheep in dispute, and as from the reasons given above it is clear that the defendant in the convention is entitled to these M. It appears from the evidence as a whole, however, that the defendant in reconvention gave £2 of which to the mother of the plaintiff in reconvention and retained the balance of £86, and as there is no evidence that the defendant in. A reconvention used some of this sum for the maintenance of the Right Hand House of the deceased, plaintiff in reconvention.
NATIVE CUSTOM
He said that on Tuesday he went to the defendant's kraal J and wanted to take Nontwaza away, but that the defendant refused to let him. This omission not only makes Stanford's testimony improbable, but lends color to the defendant's version that Nontwaza was detained at his kraal on Monday evening. That such negotiations had begun is evident not only from the defendant's evidence, but also from Stanford's.
The defendant's version that Nontwaza was first detained at his kraal on Monday evening and then in the. Assistant Native Commissioner does not state in what respect it is vague except for the two cases referred to above which are of no significance; for it is clear from Sambuqu's testimony that Nontwaza left the defendant's kraal during his (Sambuqu's). It follows that not only can it be said that the plaintiff did not establish the seduction alleged by him, but the probabilities j favor the defendant's case that he did not seduce Nontwaza.
