Hilda Sedinjane turned to the Limpopo High Court in Polokwane for an order that she be recognised as the true wife of deceased Seabela Malatji. The parties concluded a customary marriage in 1988 as evidenced by a lobola certificate and four children were born of the marriage. The couple drifted apart over the years and the applicant (Sedinjane) left the matrimonial home around late 1992. In February 2014, the deceased entered a civil marriage with Anare Malatji (first respondent) as evidenced by a home affairs department marriage certificate. The deceased died in March 2021 from natural causes and the first respondent was appointed executrix of the deceased estate by the master of the high court. Upon attending the master of the high court offices, the applicant was advised that the lobola certificate that she produced was not proof of marriage and was further advised that the first respondent had, by virtue of her civil marriage, already been appointed executor of the deceased estate. The applicant lodged an application for the court to declare the civil marriage of the first respondent and the deceased null and void. Further, for the recognition and registration of her customary marriage to the deceased and issuance of a marriage certificate in that regard. The applicant also sought a declarator that she is the only wife of the deceased and an order withdrawing the letters of executorship issued in the name of the first respondent in respect of the deceased estate. In opposing the application in both her personal and representative capacity as executrix of the deceased estate, the first respondent did not dispute that the applicant and the deceased were married, but argued that such a marriage was dissolved in 1992 when the applicant walked out of the matrimonial home eight years before the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act came into effect in November 2000. In response to this argument, acting judge Malose Monene stated that the court was struggling to understand on what grounds the first respondent claimed that the marriage between the deceased and the applicant was dissolved. “We are left none the wiser as to where, when, and how the dissolution of the customary marriage is alleged to have happened. One is left with an impression that the first respondent takes the inexplicable quantum leap in logic that the mere admitted walking out of the matrimonial home by the applicant in 1992 is conclusive proof of a divorce which happened eight years before the coming into effect of the act.” That, in the court’s view, was misplaced reasoning by the first respondent. The acting judge acknowledged that desertion may be grounds for a divorce, but it is not and cannot of itself constitute a dissolution of the marriage or a divorce. The court declared that the civil marriage entered into between the first respondent and deceased unlawful and void. The letters of executorship in respect of the deceased estate issued to the first respondent by the master of the high court were set aside. The customary marriage entered into between the applicant and the deceased is recognised as a customary marriage entered validly in terms of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act and the minister of home affairs was directed to register that customary marriage and issue the applicant with a marriage certificate. The first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application.