The Western Cape High Court has annulled the marriage of a man who lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of marriage, ruling that his widow failed to prove he was of sound mind when the vows were exchanged.
The matter was brought before the court by the executor of the deceased’s estate, identified only as Mr R, who challenged the validity of the marriage and sought an order declaring it null and void.
The executor argued that Mr R, who suffered permanent neurocognitive impairments, was of unsound mind at the time of the marriage due to severe cognitive and behavioural damage caused by a stroke and vascular dementia.
Although the widow disputed this claim and maintained that Mr R was mentally fit when they married, she failed to present expert medical evidence to support her position, despite being given several opportunities by the court.
A neurologist testified that Mr R suffered an acute middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke in May 2017, about a year before the marriage, which resulted in significant cognitive decline.
According to the expert, the stroke led to confusion, aggression and severe mental impairment, necessitating Mr R’s admission into care.
The neurologist concluded that Mr R was not of sound mind and was incapable of making major life decisions at the time of his assessment in May 2017.
A psychiatrist supported this conclusion, stating that less than a month before the marriage, Mr R’s condition remained unchanged, with permanent neurocognitive and behavioural impairments.
Evidence before the court also showed that a curator had been appointed a year before the marriage to manage Mr R’s personal affairs, as he was deemed incapable of doing so himself.
He remained under curatorship at the time of the marriage.
In her judgment, Acting Judge Pinda Njokweni noted that while adults are generally presumed to be mentally and legally competent, that presumption can be rebutted.
“The onus of proving that a transaction is invalid for want of mental capacity normally rests on the party alleging it,” the judge said.
“However, where a court has declared a person to be of unsound mind and incapable of managing his or her affairs, such a finding creates a rebuttable presumption of incapacity, shifting the burden of proof to the party seeking to enforce the transaction.”
The court further emphasised that under common law, a person who cannot fully understand the nature and consequences of their actions due to mental illness or intellectual disability lacks the legal capacity to perform such acts, rendering them void.