A recent Constitutional Court ruling in South Africa has renewed public attention on the long running divorce dispute between actress Enhle Mbali Mlotshwa and internationally acclaimed DJ Nkosinathi Maphumulo, known as Black Coffee, a case that continues to draw interest beyond South Africa, including in Eswatini where customary law and marital property regimes remain a subject of public discussion.
The judgment, delivered by the apex court earlier this month, dealt with the legal standing of customary marriages and the use of antenuptial contracts. While the ruling does not directly involve the former couple, it has revived debate around their unresolved divorce, which has spanned more than six years.
The Constitutional Court overturned an earlier High Court decision that had declared parts of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act unconstitutional. The court ruled that customary marriages enjoy the same legal status and protection as civil marriages, an issue central to the dispute between Mlotshwa and Black Coffee.
The court also clarified that antenuptial contracts entered into after a customary marriage are not automatically invalid. Instead, it held that any change to a marriage property regime must comply with existing legislation and be subject to judicial oversight to ensure fairness to both spouses.
The renewed focus on the case comes as the Supreme Court of Appeal prepares to hear Black Coffee’s appeal against a Gauteng High Court ruling delivered in October last year. That judgment found that the pair had entered into a valid customary marriage in 2011, concluded that it was in community of property, and ordered the division of their estate. The court also granted spousal maintenance to Mlotshwa.
Black Coffee has challenged the findings, disputing the existence of a valid customary marriage and opposing the award of spousal maintenance. He has argued that the matter raises legal questions of broad public importance and that there is a reasonable prospect the Supreme Court of Appeal could reach a different outcome.
In granting leave to appeal, the Johannesburg High Court acknowledged that conflicting judgments in similar cases have resulted in uncertainty in the law, creating a need for clarity from the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Discussion about this post