In our previous update, we mentioned that our lawyer was scheduled to return to court on December 8, 2024, to seek permission for substituted service. This would have allowed the papers to be served on Trevor Tutu, Tapiwa’s unlocatable father, via a public announcement in a local newspaper. The notice would require Trevor to appear at the Department of Home Affairs and fulfill his paternal obligations—submitting the relevant application and providing his fingerprints so that Tapiwa could receive his South African birth certificate with his father’s name, along with his South African identity document.
On January 22, 2025, our lawyers provided us with an update regarding the proceedings. The main application to insert Trevor’s name on Tapiwa’s birth certificate is still on hold because the application could not be delivered to Trevor by the Sheriff. To resolve this, an interlocutory application for substituted service was lodged at the High Court, with a hearing originally set for December 8, 2024.
However, that application was removed from the court roll due to issues with the documentation submitted by our lawyers. The papers were deemed unclear as they were printed from an email and not considered proper copies. Although we provided our lawyers with clear, certified copies in December 2024, when they returned to court in early January 2025, the situation took an unexpected turn. The court ruled that the matter is no longer regarded as urgent due to Tapiwa’s age—now 25 years old. As a result, the case has been rescheduled for May 2025.
This ruling is deeply disheartening. Tapiwa has been fighting for his birthright and natural heritage since his birth, and the fact that this case remains unresolved after 25 years speaks volumes about the failures of the judicial system. Despite the overwhelming evidence in the case, the court’s decision seems to disregard Tapiwa’s long-standing struggle for justice, leaving Trevor Tutu unaccountable for the delay in resolving this matter.
Moreover, this ruling means that Tapiwa will remain in limbo until May 2025, just to address the interlocutory application for substituted service. The prospect of waiting another year or two for the actual hearing on the merits of his case is unbearable. Is this what we call justice? Or are such court decisions intended to discourage Tapiwa from fighting for his rights and to protect the legacy of the Tutu family?
Despite these setbacks, we remain determined to continue fighting for Tapiwa’s rights. His battle is far from over, and we will not back down.
October 21, 2024
In our ongoing battle for Munashe’s legal recognition, we have initiated new legal proceedings at the High Court, with Trevor Tutu listed as the first defendant and the Department of Home Affairs listed as the second defendant. The legal journey has been challenging; our initial application to insert Trevor Tutu’s name on Munashe’s birth certificate was rejected on July 8, 2024, due to the requirement to locate Trevor.
To move forward, our lawyer has submitted an application for substituted service, allowing us to place a public notice to reach Trevor. We anticipate a court decision on this application by December 8, 2024. If approved, we will still face a further delay before we can argue the case for inserting Trevor’s name, likely pushing the next hearing into mid-2025.
As we await a court decision on our application for substituted service—it’s bewildering that the burden rests on us to locate Trevor Tutu and compel his attendance in court.
In 2009, the same High Court ordered Trevor to sign the necessary forms to have his name added to Munashe’s birth certificate, confirming his biological identity through DNA testing. However, due to an interdepartmental oversight, this process was never properly completed. It feels unjust that we are now expected to rectify a mistake that was not ours, especially when the court could take steps to correct this oversight.
Furthermore, the prolonged timeline—potentially an additional six months just for the approval of substituted service, followed by another six months to argue the actual insertion—raises serious questions. Why should Munashe, whose identity is legally confirmed, endure such distress while his father faces no accountability? This situation not only delays recognition but also subjects Munashe to unnecessary emotional anguish.