Pastor told widow he was divorced - court sides with her in RAF customary marriage case
The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg ordered the Road Accident Fund to compensate a widow after an intense legal battle surrounding the legitimacy of her customary marriage.
Image: File
The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg ordered the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to compensate a widow, Catherine Letaoana, after an intense legal battle surrounding the legitimacy of her customary marriage to the late Samuel Chauke.
Chauke died in a car accident in 2011. He was first married to Flora Manganyi in a civil union and later entered into a customary marriage with Letaoana.
Chauke and Manganyi were not divorced but had lived separately for over 20 years.
Letaoana, 60, insisted that she was legally married to the deceased by way of customary marriage.
However, RAF denied the existence of the customary marriage, and the fact that Letaoana had relied on Chauke for financial support.
In her application, she testified that she met Chauke in 2007 and he told her he was divorced. Subsequently in August 2007 they decided to cohabitate.
She explained that she had no reason to doubt that he was divorced because he was a pastor and was ordained in 2008 at a church in Rustenburg. Moreover, his divorce status was confirmed by some of his relatives including his son and uncle.
As their relationship progressed, she said Chauke introduced her to his sisters and cousins but, in accordance with Tsonga tradition, he could only introduce her to his mother after lobola had been paid.
Similarly, Chauke could not enter her parental residence in accordance with Tswana custom after payment of lobolo.
In March 2010 they celebrated their marriage at her parents' house, and she went to Chauke's family in Malamulele, Limpopo during May 2010, and was welcomed by his family members.
Before meeting Chauke, she said she worked at a well-known law firm in Johannesburg as a Human Resources Consultant. She resigned in 2004 to start a restaurant business and eventually sold it. Thereafter, she has not been employed again as it was hard to find another job due to her age.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
She said Chauke was employed and earned R11,000 every month and the money was used to support both of them, and he also sent some to his mother.
During his funeral, she was allowed to sit on the traditional widows' mattress, while the second wife, who had also attended the funeral, was not allowed to sit on the mattress. She argued that this signified that Chauke's family recognised her as the wife.
After the funeral, Chauke's employer informed her that she was a beneficiary on his policy and when she went to his workplace, she found the first wife already there. She said she received 60%, a figure that contrasted with the 40% allocated to Manganyi. She shared her amount with Chauke's mother and gave her five percent.
Even though she remarried again in March 2024, she said she and her new husband are surviving on government grants.
Meanwhile, in a written argument, RAF sought to argue that the customary marriage was invalidated by the provisions of the Civil Union Act which prohibits the conclusion of a customary marriage where there was a pre-existing civil marriage or civil union. However, this defence was never pleaded in court, nor put to Letaoana during cross-examination.
Judge Dawid Marais said RAF was not entitled to rely on such defence as the defence was not pleaded, nor was it fully ventilated during the trial.
RAF tried to rely on Chauke's death certificate which showed that he was still married to Manganyi, but judge Marais said the death certificate was meaningless as it does not reflect the entire history of the marriage, whether the marriage was dissolved by divorce, or by the death of a spouse.
"It also does not indicate whether the marriage was by way of civil union or by customary law. In the premises, the content of the death certificate does not assist the defendant (RAF) in this matter.
In addition, he said RAF failed to prove that Chauke and Manganyi's marriage was extant.
Judge Marais said he could not find deception in Letaoana's evidence as she had no reason to doubt a man who was to be ordained as a pastor, secondly, he assured her that he was divorced. Additionally, his family also believed that he was divorced.
Consequently, RAF was ordered to pay Letaoana for the loss of support caused by Chauke's death.
The matter was postponed to determine an appropriate amount due to Letaoana.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
4 days ago
- The South African
Court orders RAF to pay R1.4m to undocumented Malawian
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed the Road Accident Fund's (RAF) application to rescind a R1.4 million payment awarded to an undocumented Malawian man injured in a car crash. IOL reported that, Charles Jeka Chipofya, a Malawian national, has lived in South Africa since 1994. He married a South African woman in 2008, and they have two children. Despite his long stay, he failed to secure South African citizenship due to what the court noted as widespread abuse of the system by some foreign nationals. Chipofya suffered serious injuries in a road accident in Plettenberg Bay in September 2016. He filed a claim with RAF, and in November 2022, both parties agreed to a proposed settlement of over R1.4 million. A court confirmed the order in January 2023. However, RAF later withdrew its consent, claiming it had discovered Chipofya's undocumented status only after the judgment. The RAF asked the court to rescind the order, claiming it was misled. RAF said Chipofya submitted a passport under the name 'Charles Chipeta,' raising concerns when compared to court documents identifying him as 'Charles Jeka Chipofya.' Upon investigation, RAF found that he held two passports with different names. When questioned, Chipofya claimed a data capture error caused the inconsistency. RAF rejected this explanation, calling it improbable. RAF's investigation showed that one passport had expired in 2012, and the other appeared to have been issued after the accident. Movement records did not show Chipofya legally exiting or re-entering the country. RAF argued this suggested he was either not in South Africa at the time of the accident or was staying in the country illegally. Despite these concerns, the court ruled against RAF. The judge found no evidence that the initial order was granted in error or that Chipofya acted fraudulently. The court upheld the R1.4 million award. RAF warned that allowing undocumented immigrants to claim damages would place an undue burden on the state. The court maintained that it lawfully granted the order based on the facts available at the time. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
5 days ago
- IOL News
Court orders RAF to honour R1. 4 million payment to undocumented Malawian immigrant injured in car crash
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to rescind a judgment mandating the payment of over R1.4 million to a Malawian man who has been in the country illegally. Image: Pexels The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to rescind a judgment mandating a payment of over R1.4 million to an undocumented Malawian man. Charles Jeka Chipofya has been living in the country since 1994 and has been married to a South African woman since 2008. They have two children. Despite his long-term residence, his attempts to obtain citizenship through marriage were thwarted due to evident abuse of the system by some African nationals. The Road Accident Fund found itself at the centre of controversy after Chipofya was involved in a severe car accident in Plettenberg Bay in September 2016. He filed a claim with the RAF, culminating in a proposed settlement of over R1.4 million in November 2022. In January 2023, a draft order was presented to the court on mutual consent between the parties, and RAF was ordered to pay Chipofya over R1.4 million. However, two years later, RAF reneged and wanted the court to rescind the order claiming that when it was made, it was unaware that Chipofya was an illegal immigrant. RAF said that when Chipofya submitted a copy of a passport, it referred to him as Charles Chipeta and not as Charles Jeka Chipofya, and this was suspicious. In response to this suspicion, RAF investigated to ascertain the circumstances surrounding his dual identity and it came to light that Chipofya owns two passports, one naming him as Charles Jeka Chipofya and the other as Charles Chipeta. RAF stated that when Chipofya was confronted about having two passports, he tried to attribute the discrepancy to a data capture error. However, in RAF's view, his explanation was unlikely, as it is improbable that such an error could occur. Subsequent to that, RAF said investigations revealed that one of the passports did not exist at the time of the accident. Additionally, the movement system record revealed that the visa on the other passport expired in December 2012. Moreover, there were no records showing that Chipofya left the country using the old passport or that he entered the country with a new passport after December 2012. In RAF's view, this could imply that Chipofya was either not present in the country on the date of the accident or was potentially in the country illegally. RAF argued that the order was erroneously granted and had the court been made aware that Chipofya was an illegal immigrant, the court would not have granted the order. Furthermore, RAF contended that the Immigration Act prohibits illegal immigrants from being in the country and extending claims of damages to illegal immigrants will create an enormous burden on the State. In response, Chipofya's legal representative argued that RAF had prior knowledge of his nationality and legal status before reaching a settlement agreement. Moreover, it was argued that Chipofya never misrepresented his status in the country and the settlement agreement was not based on the assumed existence of his legal status in the country. Judge James Dumisani Lekhuleni who presided over the matter, sided with Chipofya, and noted RAF had reduced the claim amount specifically because Chipofya was an illegal immigrant at the time of the offer, a fact that had been openly discussed during negotiations. "This conclusion is fortified by the fact that RAF's legal representatives advised Chipofya's attorneys that his claim would be reduced because he was an illegal immigrant. This averment was not disputed by the RAF or RAF's counsel," he said. In addition, he said Chipofya's medical reports and some of his documents, showed that he didn't have a valid visa and despite this, RAF settled his claim and consented to have the draft order endorsed in court. Regarding the different names, the judge said Chipofya provided a plausible explanation regarding the names and when RAF made the offer, it was aware of the discrepancies. Judge Lekhuleni emphasised that RAF is legally bound under the RAF Act to provide compensation for losses arising from road accidents, asserting that the Act does not discriminate based on a claimant's immigration status. "In my opinion, the current legislative framework of the RAF Act does not support the fund's position to exclude illegal immigrants from the application of RAF. "Eligibility for the RAF fund is not contingent upon a person's legal status within this country. An individual's legal standing does not influence their eligibility for RAF benefits. Simply put, it is not the person's immigration status in the country that makes a person legible to the RAF benefits," he said. RAF's application was dismissed. [email protected] IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
The Citizen
29-05-2025
- The Citizen
RAF ‘deliberately withholding' information from Scopa
The SIU tells us that one law firm has received an incredibly disproportionate portion of the work allocated by the RAF – Scopa chair. What is the RAF hiding, and why does its R1.2m-a-year chair not think it 'important enough' to make sure Scopa is given the information it asked for? Picture: Moneyweb The Road Accident Fund (RAF) has been accused of deliberately withholding information from Parliament's Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) about the top 10 law firms to receive briefs and payments from the fund. Scopa chair Songeza Zibi said on Wednesday he has asked for this information twice, the first time on 6 November 2024. He now believes 'this information is being deliberately withheld from the committee for improper reasons'. 'In the intervening period, the SIU [Special Investigating Unit] came to brief the committee and one of the things that they told us is that one of the law firms has received an incredibly disproportionate portion of the work allocated by the RAF. 'We do not know who that law firm is but you can see why that information is pertinent.' He said he cannot understand 'why it is easy to provide the plaintiff information but it seems impossible to provide the corporate legal services information' when the committee has asked for it in writing and in the sitting. Zibi said one of the things he is concerned about is that there are names of law firms that appear on both the lists. ALSO READ: RAF CEO placed on special leave with full pay, as MPs grill fund What does the RAF chair say? RAF chair Lorraine Francois apologised for the information not being provided and assured the committee it will be provided. Zibi said his difficulty is that Francois was in the meeting and knew Scopa asked for this information, which has not been provided. Zibi said it would not be unfair to hold Francois responsible for the failure to provide this information because the board is the accounting authority. Francois said the RAF board secretary takes note of Scopa's requirements but they always assume that it is the responsibility of the RAF CEO and executive to put this information together. Controversial RAF CEO Collins Letsoalo was placed on special leave with full pay and benefits by the board on Tuesday as a precautionary measure, but it was stated that this did not constitute disciplinary action. ALSO READ: R25.5 billion deficit over five years — Can RAF afford to pay out claims? Francois said most of the time, the information requested gets submitted directly to Scopa. 'We are a non-executive board so we don't review everything that comes here directly. 'That is the responsibility of the executive. Now I take full accountability and will ensure this happens. But to respect the request of this committee, I will now get to that level to make sure we will provide this information,' she said. Scopa member Mark Burke of the DA took issue with her answer and asked her what her annual compensation is. Francois said it is about R1.2 million. 'You get paid R1.2 million, which is the equivalent of a parliamentary salary and in your mind it's too operational for you to respond to the [request] for information,' said Burke. 'That [it] is beyond the scope of your work. Does that seem reasonable to you?' Zibi said he would answer this question. 'You [Francois] didn't think it was important enough because I have raised it twice and you simply didn't bother to check. 'We are not asking you to be operational. I am asking you to ensure that the needs of the committee are met by way of information,' he said. ALSO READ: RAF national crisis demands urgent action – expert 'Terminate the board immediately' Scopa member Alan Beesley of ActionSA followed up by stating that he found Francois's response dumbfounding. 'I saw the list that [Zibi] asked for. It's not an extensive list,' said Beesley. He requested that Deputy Minister of Transport Mkhuleko Hlengwa write letters of termination immediately to the RAF board because it is acting with immunity at the moment and treating parliament with disrespect, which is totally unacceptable. Acting RAF CEO Phathutshedzo Lukhwareni said a panel of 43 law firms was appointed by the RAF in December 2023, but only 19 were briefed and paid during the 2023 and 2024 financial years 'at the time of preparing the report'. Lukhwareni said a total R6 million was paid to these law firms in 2023, and around R104 million in 2024. He said it is a panel (of law firms) and obviously the selection takes place depending on the complexity of the matter. ALSO READ: RAF at risk of imploding No state security clearance Scopa was also told that not a single member of the RAF's board or senior executive has a security clearance from the State Security Agency (SSA). Lukhwareni said all the forms have been submitted to the SSA for the vetting process and interviews have been held with some of the executives but 'from here on it's beyond our control from a RAF perspective and SSA is responsible'. Zibi said something does not match because on 16 October 2024 he had an exchange with Francois about the vetting of officials and one official, Letsoalo, was said to be vetted. Zibi pointed out that Letsoalo said in March 2025 that he had been vetted – and the difference between what he said then and the state of affairs now 'means for the second time he lied to the committee'. 'I asked him about the treasurer at the RAF and he [also] lied about that.' Scopa member Patrick Atkinson of the DA said Letsoalo – who was initially acting CEO of the RAF and has now been CEO for five years – has been without a security clearance for seven years. Atkinson said the problem with that is that (without clearance) Letsoalo has not been legally appointed to that position and the question then is how would he have the authority to take the legal action he has against the Auditor-General (AG). ALSO READ: Expert accuses RAF of misrepresenting itself and its purpose The RAF unsuccessfully applied to review and set aside the AG's disclaimer of the fund's 2020/2021 annual financial results and to declare the disclaimer invalid and unlawful. The AG issued the disclaimer because the RAF used an accounting standard it was not permitted to use. 'I understand the court might give him six months to get his security clearance but not seven years,' Atkinson said. 'If he has been operating for seven years without a security clearance, it raises a massive legal issue about a whole variety [of issues] about the accounting principles, not paying out medical aids and foreigners and a whole variety of board minutes which are illegal.' Zibi said he would have to take legal advice on that and would not hold the Department of Transport or RAF responsible for the tardiness of the SSA. He said Scopa will take that up with the responsible minister, but the committee needs to work out if Scopa was misled when the CEO told the committee that he had been vetted. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
