Court showdown over Mabuza’s R44-million estate as ‘two wives’ battle for recognition
A bitter legal fight has erupted at the Mpumalanga High Court over the R44-million estate of the late former deputy president, David Dabede Mabuza. At the heart of the dispute is the question of which of two women can legally be recognised as his wife — and who is entitled to inherit the bulk of his fortune.
The contest pits Emunah Silinda (formerly Ruth Funi Silinda), who says she was married to Mabuza through a customary union in 1999, against Nonhlahla Patience Mnisi, who presents a controversial marriage certificate issued only after Mabuza’s death.
Mabuza died on 3 July, leaving behind not only a substantial estate but also multiple dependants. Central to the case is a R44-million living annuity that he had invested through Alexander Forbes Financial Services. Mnisi was nominated as the sole beneficiary of this annuity, and she insists she is the late politician’s lawful spouse.
Customary marriage claim
Silinda and her daughter, Tamara Silinda, are challenging Mnisi’s nomination. They are seeking urgent relief to secure financial support and to have their rights as dependants recognised.
In her affidavit, Silinda states:
“I married my deceased husband, David Dabede Mabuza, in 1999 at my family home [in] Mkhuhlu Village, Mpumalanga Province, in accordance with customary law and tradition.
“The deceased expressed his intentions to marry me, initiating the traditional process of lobola negotiations between the Silinda and Mabuza families.”
She argues that the marriage satisfied all the requirements of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, including lobola negotiations and a ceremony, and that the union was never dissolved. Although the marriage was never formally registered, Silinda points to section 4(9) of the Act, which makes it clear that “failure to register a customary marriage does not affect the validity of that marriage”.
Daughter’s fight for support
Tamara Silinda, a first-year medical student at the University of Cape Town, is also part of the application. She is asking for interim financial relief to cover her tuition fees of R127,990 a year, as well as monthly living expenses of R40,000.
Her affidavit underscores her vulnerability:
“The sudden demise of my father resulted in my loss of support and basic necessities, including tuition, exacerbating my financial vulnerability.”
She maintains that her father’s duty of support did not end with his death and remains enforceable against his estate and financial resources. She draws on section 28(1)(c) of the Constitution, which guarantees every child’s right to parental care and necessities, to reinforce her claim.
Disputed marriage certificate
The most contentious issue remains Mnisi’s claim. She relies on a marriage certificate obtained from the Department of Home Affairs after Mabuza’s death. Silinda and her daughter are questioning its legality.
Silinda’s affidavit is firm on this point: “We challenge the legality of this certificate, as no valid marriage could have been concluded or registered after death.”
The applicants also argue that Mnisi’s sole nomination as beneficiary of the annuity is “invalid, unlawful, and contrary to public policy and constitutional principles”. They cite section 37C of the Pension Funds Act, which requires trustees to distribute death benefits equitably among dependants and nominees, regardless of the deceased’s expressed wishes.
Legal arguments and precedents
The applicants are building their case on several legal precedents. They refer to Mbungela v Mkabi (2019), in which the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the validity of a customary marriage that had not been formally registered. The court stressed that customary law is evolving and should be interpreted with flexibility.
They also cite Mashazi v African Products Retirement Benefit Provident Fund (2003), where it was ruled that trustees must place the rights of dependants above the deceased’s personal nomination when distributing benefits.
The applicants argue that if Mnisi’s sole nomination is upheld, it would undermine constitutional values such as equality, dignity, and the best interests of children. They insist that the court has a duty to step in where strict formalities unjustly exclude lawful dependants.
Urgent interim relief
Silinda and her daughter are asking the court for an urgent interim order. They want Alexander Forbes restrained from transferring the annuity funds to Mnisi and for the money to be kept in an interest-bearing account until the case is finalised.
They also request interim maintenance payments for Tamara’s tuition and living expenses, along with access to the family home in Barberton so that they and other dependants can visit Mabuza’s grave.
The long-term relief sought — the so-called Part B application — goes further. They want the court to:
- Officially recognise Silinda’s customary marriage to Mabuza;
- Declare Mnisi’s nomination as sole beneficiary invalid and against public policy;
- Order equitable distribution of the annuity among all lawful dependants;
- And set aside the posthumously issued marriage certificate.
Other parties in the case
Alexander Forbes, the second respondent, has already disclosed that the annuity funds were disinvested for transfer to Momentum, but the transfer has been frozen pending the outcome of the case.
The Master of the High Court and the Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA) are also cited as respondents because of their roles in managing estates and pension funds. The Minister of Home Affairs has been included due to the dispute over the validity of Mnisi’s marriage certificate.
Mnisi, meanwhile, continues to insist that she is Mabuza’s lawful spouse and sole beneficiary of the annuity.
What the court must decide
The court now faces a complex task: determining whether Mabuza’s customary marriage to Silinda was valid under the law, whether Mnisi’s marriage certificate carries any weight, and how the R44-million annuity and other benefits should be distributed among the dependants.
Beyond the financial stakes, the outcome will test the balance between statutory law and living customary practices, as well as the protection of dependants’ rights in South Africa’s legal system.
Follow Us on Twitter
