He argued that the action in the main court was against the plaintiff's wife and not against the plaintiff himself. In the case of Mtembu v. N.E.) 1 it was accepted that the practice and procedure in a principal court was as stated by the assessors viz.
CENTRAL BANTU APPEAL COURT
I think that the defendants have discharged their onus to show that the plaintiff was a party to the undefended suit before defendant no. 2 and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs, but that the decision of the Commissioner for Additional Bantu Affairs has been changed has said:-.
HUSBAND AND WIFE
The goods and articles mentioned above constitute more than half of the value of the assets of the common property. 2) The division of the balance between the spouses will depend on the contribution that each has made to the joint property.
NORTH-EASTERN BANTU APPEAL COURT
In Revill's case, a trustee was appointed, but there the order was for division, that is to say, equal division, so that a determination of the ratio between the contribution of one spouse and that of the other was not necessary, as in the present case would be the case. . I am of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence before the Court to justify the appointment of a receiver and I am therefore of the opinion that the appeal should be allowed with costs and that the judgment of the Court a quo should be varied.
CHIEFS’ AND HEADMEN S CIVIL COURTS
It is true that in his presentation Mr Helman did not refer to the choice the Court would have whether to make a payment itself or to appoint a trustee, but sought to show that there was sufficient a quo for the Court to grant the defendant the right to care about relief. Another factor that could have led to the appointment of a trustee in Revill's case was that the estate was significant and the costs associated with such an appointment could be justified.
COMMON LAW— SPOLIATION
A rule nisi was issued calling upon the Chief to show cause why possession of the beast should not be returned to the appellant, and on the following day evidence was taken. The judgment of the Commissioner for Bantu Affairs is quashed and replaced by "The rule nisi is dismissed with costs".
NEHEMIAH ZUNGU
A.C. CASE 94 OF 1968
243 (N.E.) where in a case somewhat similar to the instant one it was held that the Chief had the power to attach cattle. In that case, because seizure was resisted, it was found that the Chief should not have used force to recover the fine, but should have applied to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner's Court for enforcement of the sentence.
SEDUCTION AND PREGNANCY BANTU WOMEN IN NATAL
The Bantu Penal Code deals with wrongs against the chief in his capacity as "father," so to speak, to the tribe, and he is entitled to demand a fine from the offender. This is thus that the chief was entitled to attach a beast in settlement when the plaintiff did not pay.
LOCUS STANDI
A.C. CASE 10 OF 1969
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
The Learned Commissioner for Bantu Affairs erred in holding that the Applicant had not complied with rule 77(1). The Learned Commissioner for Bantu Affairs erred in alleging that the applicant was willful in his failure to comply when there was insufficient evidence to show his willfulness. On the face of paragraphs and 7, the Learned Commissioner for Bantu Affairs erred in holding that rule 77(4) applied.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the Bantu Affairs Commissioner's judgment was set aside and replaced.
SOUTHERN BANTU APPEAL COURT MORGANTHAL MDOLO vs BOYCE VANDA
BANTU APPEAL CASE 5/69
DAMAGES
In assessing the damages that can be compensated under the first point, the Court must try to estimate the actual damage that the plaintiff has suffered as a result of the loss of the guilty spouse's society, comfort and benefits in the form of money. When assessing the compensation that can be compensated according to the second part, the Court must take as its starting point all the circumstances of the case, including taking into account the conditions on which the spouses lived together and the circumstances. Not only his children, but he too has been deprived of his wife's society, comfort, and favors.
Taking into account all the relevant factors, I am of the opinion that an award of RilOO as compensation in the present case would be sufficient.
SOUTHERN BANTU APPEAL COURT
BANTWANA SEFA
A.C. CASE 18 OF 1969
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Mr. Koyana, appearing for the appellant, based his argument on the words of the relevant definition of default judgment contained in rule 1 of the Rules for the Courts of Commissioners for Bantu Affairs contained in Government Notice 2082 of 1967 viz. Default judgment means a judgment given in the absence of the party against whom it was given and the fact that the defendant was in court during the proceedings. The position he took is the same as that taken by the defendant in this case, who stated at the outset that he could not proceed with his case in the absence of his lawyer, and that he stood by that position, his reply at the end of the main the evidence of each of the plaintiff's witnesses that he had no questions.
The conclusion I reach then is that at the beginning of the hearing the defendant withdrew from the case and therefore the judgment given against him was a default judgment which the Commissioner had every right to set aside if he was satisfied that the requirements for it had been met . There was no irregularity and the request for annulment of the dismissal decision is rejected with costs.
NORTH-EASTERN BANTU APPEAL COURT MPANZA vs MADIDE
A.C CASE 18 OF 1969
MESSENGER OF COURT
The summons directed him to raise the judgment debt "of property" for the judgment debtor, and it is presumed that he was convinced that the cattle were his property. He also appeared to have relied on the presumption that all cattle at a kraal were the property of the kraal head - in this case Zephania or, apparently more correctly, Zibizendhlela Manqele. The Bantu Commissioner did not state in his "Facts Found Proved and Reasons for Judgment" that he found it proved that the seven cattle concerned were the property of the plaintiff.
However, he softened somewhat and "out of respect" said "my award of R392 was made because I believed, and still believe, that this was the fair and reasonable market price of the cattle".
SOUTHERN BANTU APPEAL COURT NTONGA DLATU vs 1. LINDELO NTLA
A.C. CASE 20 OF 1969
EVIDENCE
A.C. CASE 27 OF 1969
BANTU LAW AND CUSTOM
This led the Plaintiff to sue the Defendant for "sondhlo" for his sister's remaining three adulterous children, all boys, with a view to relieving him of the burden of maintenance due to him and also to avoid in due course the assistance of him in paying their lobola. The chairman should have found that the sale agreement was finalized in terms of the sale of the body and other parts and that I had nothing to do with the engine. the testimony of the plaintiff's witness Makhomazana Nhleko given the fact that all this evidence is hearsay.
It is common practice that there was an agreement of sale between the parties in respect of a particular 1961 Chevrolet Pickup van, but a dispute arose as to whether the defendant had purchased the entire van in its current condition or just the body excluding the engine .
NORTH-EASTERN BANTU APPEAE COURT
Assuming that the judgment was delivered on March 30, 1968, the presiding judge should have found that such judgment was out of time and since there was no evidence of compliance with Rule 2 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Chief and Head of the Civil Court published in Ordinance Glasnik 885 of December 29. The Presiding Judge should find that the purported registration of the judgment on 21 May 1968 was invalid because it was recognized. He did not submit any documentary evidence for the judgment he challenged, in violation of the best evidence rule.
While the appellant and his witness stated that on 24th February 1968 no notice of the compensation case was given, and both respondents state that it was, the contention of the first respondent that the appellant was then informed of various subsequent postponements.
NORTH-EASTERN BANTU APPEAL COURT KUMALO vs MBATA
B A C CASE 39 OF 1969
An appeal to the Bantu Commissioner's Court was dismissed with costs, but the Chief's judgment "For the plaintiff for five head of cattle plus costs R2.50" was amended to "For the plaintiff for one black and white ox and costs 2 50 R". Court of the Commissioner of Bantu Affairs to “hear and re-try the case as if it were a first instance in that Court. The Commissioner's statement that the plaintiff succeeded both in the Chief's Court and in his own Court is fanciful.
The commissioner waived the dismissal of the appeal. The change in the chief's judgment was substantive and not merely formal, so the court had to grant the appeal in order to implement it.
NORTH-EASTERN BAJNTU APPEAL COURT MPANZA vs DUBAZANE
A.C. CASE 47 OF 1969
The decision in the case earlier heard by the Chief, in which the Plaintiff's father sued the Defendant for the same R21, which appears in the said case and on which the Commissioner based his decision of res judicata says "The claim is dismissed and forfeited your expenses R5.50." . Dismissal of a suit is not admissible as res judicata vide Jones & Buckle "The Civil Practice of the Magistrates' Courts of S.A." Sixth edition, pages 771-773 and. Held: That forest rangers were entitled to use force in the performance of their duties, provided it did not exceed the exigencies of the case.
He further claimed that the first and third fingers of the right hand and the thumb of the left hand were totally incapacitated and that he had been detained in the hospital for 15 days.
A.C. CASE 69 OF 68
That the defendant was therefore not actually and legally entitled to payment of the fees admitted in the plea. It is clear from the evidence on both sides that it was necessary to obtain permission from the chief before conducting a circumcision school in the area; but according to the witnesses for the plaintiffs, the manager of the site as representative of the chief was sometimes approached. During the hearing of the case the counsel for the parties agreed that the question to be decided was whether the custom alleged in the defendant's plea existed or not.
The right of payers to recover payments made unwillingly was not a point at issue.
SOUTHERN BANTU APPEAL COURT BELMAN TEZ1LE TESTILE vs JIM MTAMO
A.C. CASE 77 OF 1968
DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT
Later when he (Plaintiff) felt that he had had enough to drink, he went home with Geelbooi and Johnson and on his way, while walking along a footpath, he was assaulted by the defendant and although he tried to defend himself he suffered injuries to his head. which resulted in the loss of his right eye and he also suffered a fracture of his left arm which he cannot now straighten. Furthermore, he stated in his evidence in chief that, after he went to get his stick, he exchanged blows with both Plaintiff and Geelbooi but in answer to the Court he said that Geelbooi did not assault him further while he was busy with Plaintiff not. The accused's witness Norman stated in his evidence in chief that Geelbooi hit the accused first but said under cross-examination that he was in the house at the time and only heard the blows.
The Commissioner had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses and accepted the evidence that the plaintiff prefers it to the defendant, and it has not been shown that he was wrong to have done so.
AMPTENARE VAN DIE BANTOE-APPELHOVVE, 1969
OFFICERS OF THE BANTU APPEAL COURTS. 1969
