Unpaid inhlawulo sparks burial tug-of-war

Mbabane – A family dispute over the repatriation of a liSwati who died in South Africa has landed in court.

The deceased’s elder brother alleges that relatives frustrated efforts to bring Mlungisi Shongwe’s remains home, while his maternal aunt insists that the disagreement concerns where he should be buried rather than whether his body should return to Eswatini.

The dispute has been brought before the High Court in an urgent application filed by Muzi Shongwe, who wants the court to restrain the deceased’s aunt (make lomncane), Sindisiwe Masango, and his half-siblings, Zandile Malaza and Sanele Mngometulu, from interfering with the repatriation, funeral and burial arrangements.

These claims are contained in affidavits filed in court, the merits of which are yet to be determined.

The funeral was planned for today, at his paternal family homestead at Phonjwana, Lubombo Region. In his founding affidavit, Muzi alleged that efforts to repatriate his brother’s remains were frustrated when Masango refused to provide the deceased’s passport and other documents needed for the process.

He stated that the refusal persisted despite an order issued by the Big Bend Magistrates Court concerning the release of the documents.

According to the interim order issued on Tuesday October 13, 2026, the respondents in those proceedings were directed to surrender or release the deceased’s birth certificate and passport to facilitate the repatriation of his remains from South Africa. The order identified the applicants as Muzi and Nomphumelelo Shongwe (née Nkwanyana), the deceased’s surviving spouse as described in the papers. It also directed the respondents to release the birth certificate of the couple’s child.

Muzi argued that the alleged withholding of the documents delayed the family’s efforts and created a reasonable fear that further interference could affect the funeral and burial.

He disclosed in his affidavit that his family had managed to facilitate the repatriation process and was on its way to South Africa to collect the body.

He said the urgency of the application arose from the approaching burial date, the costs associated with transporting the remains and the distress experienced by the deceased’s surviving family.

Muzi wants the High Court to prevent the respondents from obstructing the transportation, reception or custody of the remains, threatening family members or preventing the burial from proceeding at Phonjwana.

He also seeks an order declaring that the direction issued by the umphakatsi for the families to engage over customary damages does not, by itself, prohibit the burial at the paternal homestead. The applicants are represented by Mfanasbili Jacques Dlamini of S.M. Dlamini Attorneys.

However, Masango, in an answering affidavit filed on behalf of herself and the other two respondents, Malaza and Mngometulu, denied that they had obstructed or threatened to obstruct the repatriation. She said the respondents had never opposed the deceased’s body being brought back to Eswatini and that their objection concerned the proposed burial location.

Masango, who is represented by Martin ‘Internash’ Dlamini of Martin N. Dlamini Attorneys, argued that the applicants’ own affidavit confirmed that the repatriation arrangements were progressing because his family was already travelling to South Africa to collect the remains.

She disputed the claim that the alleged withholding of documents established a continuing obstruction or a reasonable apprehension that the respondents would interfere with the funeral.

Masango further stated that she was not a party to the magistrates court proceedings and denied refusing to release the deceased’s passport or other documents in defiance of the order.

The dispute over the burial location was rooted in the families’ differing positions on the deceased’s customary family ties and the outstanding inhlawulo, or customary damages.

Muzi said the respondents reported the matter to the umphakatsi, seeking to prevent the burial at the paternal family homestead because the customary damages allegedly remained unpaid.

According to him, the traditional authority directed the families to engage one another to resolve the dispute. He maintained that, to his knowledge, the umphakatsi did not prohibit the burial at Phonjwana. He further stated that his family remained willing to participate in the customary process and settle any obligations properly established, but argued that the dispute should not be used to delay the deceased’s burial.

Masango disputed this account of the family’s customary obligations. She said the deceased’s father had never paid inhlawulo to the maternal family and that the deceased had never been formally claimed by his paternal relatives in accordance with Swazi Law and Custom.

She stated that the deceased was born on June 10, 1974, at Gamula to Busisiwe Maggie Masango and that his parents were never married to each other.

According to Masango, the deceased was raised by his mother’s family and later established his own homestead at Gamula after being allocated land under Matsenjwa Umphakatsi.

She said he lived there with his family, kept his livestock and property at the homestead and never lived at Muzi’s homestead at Phonjwane as an adult. Masango argued that the deceased’s decision to establish and maintain his own home at Gamula supported the respondents’ position that he should be buried there.

She denied that the outstanding customary damages were being used to hold the body to ransom, maintaining that the issue explained why the maternal family considered the deceased to have remained part of its family.

The respondents also challenged the urgency of the application, arguing that the applicant knew of the dispute before Thursday October 22, but only approached the High Court on the eve of the planned burial.

Masango said the families had already been directed to engage and that a family meeting had taken place on Tuesday October 13. She contended that the applicants proceeded with the burial arrangements without consulting the maternal family. She further argued that the proposed order permitting burial at Phonjwana would have a final effect because the burial could not subsequently be reversed. In her view, the applicants had not established a clear right to insist on that location. Muzi’s wife, Nomphumelelo, filed a confirmatory affidavit stating that the deceased had expressed a wish to be buried at his paternal family graveyard at Phonjwane. She said the alleged interference was causing her and the children unnecessary stress.

Masango disputed whether the claimed marriage had been established under customary law and argued that the widow’s wishes did not, by themselves, determine the burial location.

Another issue raised in the application concerned the deceased’s interests in a sugar cane farming scheme. Muzi feared that the burial location could be used as a basis for claiming control over those interests.

Masango denied that the respondents intended to claim the scheme interests and said their concern was to protect the children’s interests in accordance with the scheme’s regulations.

The respondents asked the court to dismiss the application with costs. Alternatively, they proposed that the families meet at the umphakatsi, with a traditional representative present, to reach agreement on the burial arrangements.

They said the applicant’s family, the widow and the children should be allowed to attend and participate in the funeral at Gamula without harassment or obstruction. The matter was heard by Judge Maxine Langwenya.

The post Unpaid inhlawulo sparks burial tug-of-war appeared first on Times of Eswatini.