More than a month after a man had died, his family and his current wife are at a tug-of-war as to where he should be buried.
The tussle prompted the judge to express his displeasure that the deceased has not been laid to rest yet and not afforded a dignified farewell to be rested at the place of his choice.
On the one hand are the two children of the deceased — on the other hand is his wife, according to whom he is married in terms of customary law, as well as the son they had together. The wife had her own burial plans for the deceased, but the children insisted that he be laid to rest next to their mother - his first wife.
The new wife wanted her husband to be buried in Seabe. His children want him next to their mother in her grave in Soshanguve.
The new wife earlier turned to court on an ex-parte basis — without informing his children - to allow her to bury him according to her wishes. The court granted her wish, but the children turned to court to have that ruling overturned, as their voice was not heard.
They now told the court that their father’s wish was to be laid to rest next to their mother — a fact the judge who ruled in favour of the widow did not know.
The children denied that their father married again after their mother passed on. Technically they are correct in that regard. However, their father, it would appear from the evidence led in these proceedings, lived a double life. He, unbeknown to them, entered a customary marriage with the first respondent (current wife) in Seabe during the subsistence of his civil marriage, Judge MP Khumalo noted.
Wedding pictures were handed to court, depicting the celebration of the white wedding of the deceased to the first respondent. But the problem arose, as he married his second wife while he was still married to his first wife.
But Judge Khumalo said the real issue that this court had to decide was where the deceased's resting place should be, either in Seabe or in Soshanguve where his civil marriage wife is resting.
In expressing her displeasure that the deceased, after a month, has not yet found his final resting place, the judge asked the parties to try and find common ground, as they owed it to him. But this did not happen and the parties returned to court.
One of the deceased’s sons testified that the deceased spent his last days with him in Soshanguve at the house that the deceased shared with his late wife who pre-deceased him.
He and his sister had gone to Seabe when they learnt that the deceased was not well. They took him to Soshanguve at his request because he wanted to visit the grave of his late wife, which is in Soshanguve.
He further testified that shortly before his death, the deceased requested them to accompany him to the grave of his late wife. He then requested a family meeting where he said that he must be buried in the same gravesite as his late wife.
His second wife testified that she was customarily married to the deceased in 1986. She had met the deceased a year or two prior to their marriage. Lobola was paid for her in the amount of 80 pounds.
She had never met the deceased's former wife. When she got married to the deceased, she did not know that he was married or that he had children elsewhere.
She told the court that it was the deceased's wish that he be buried in the general cemetery in Seabe and that he and she be buried next to each other.
But the judge said he had made his wish clear to his children that he wanted to be buried next to his first wife. Whatever led him to this decision will remain a mystery, the judge said.
The court ruled that he will be buried next, or close, to his first wife, but that the funeral will take place with the involvement of all his family, which included his second wife.
Pretoria News