The South African Bill of Rights and the Development of Family Law

Family law is probably the area of South African private law which has expanded and changed most rapidly in the past nine years. Many of these changes have come about as a result of the enactment of a Bill of Rights in both the interim and the final Constitution. 1 On the one hand, this is not surprising, since family law contains many legal rules which are overtly discriminatory on the bases of sex, gender, culture, religion and sexual orientation. On the other hand, legal rules in this area represent a codification of moral and social norms in the quotidian and 'private' lives of many people, which are often resistant to scrutiny and change.ML201

The Rule That a Spouse Cannot Forfeit at Divorce What He Or She Has Contributed to the Marriage: An Argument for Chance

Unlike other systems of family law, South African law allows parties to choose their matrimonial property system by way of antenuptial contract. Although the financial consequences of the dissolution of marriage follow broadly from the chosen matrimonial property system, certain statutory and common-law mechanisms allow for a variation from the rigours of the applicable property regime. This article concerns one of these mechanisms, namely forfeiture of benefits in terms of s 9 of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979.ML201

Developing the Common Law of Breach of Promise and Universal Partnerships: Rights to Property Sharing for All Cohabitants

The Constitutional Court's 2005 judgment in Volks NO v Robinson' has been widely regarded as a setback for the extension of legal rights to opposite-sex cohabitants. The majority of the court held that an unmarried opposite-sex cohabitant is not a spouse under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990.2 According to Smith, this judgment 'effectively put paid to the judicial extension of matrimonial law to unmarried opposite-sex cohabiting life partners'.ML201

Guidelines for the Approval of Surrogate Motherhood Agreements:Ex Parte WH

In 2011 the North and South Gauteng High Courts were approached to confirm surrogate motherhood agreements in accordance with the provisions of chapter 19 of the Children's Act 38 of 2005. The judgments were reported as In Re-Confirmation of Three Surrogate motherhood Agreements 2011 (6) SA22 (GSJ) and Ex parte 14FI2011 (6) SA514 (GNP). This note concerns the latter judgment.ML201

A Duty of Support for All South African Unmarried Intimate Partners Part 2

Part I of this two-part article argued that post-constitutional developments of the right to support have excluded the largest and most vulnerable sector of South African women – African women in invalid customary marriages and in intimate partnerships which do not resemble monogamous Western nuclear households. Part II explores the avenues to develop customary and common law to extend rights to support to these women. It argues that the current position discriminates against poor, rural African women on multiple intersecting grounds, which creates a duty for courts to develop the current legal rules. Customary law affords scope for development in relation to women in invalid customary marriages. Common law rights to support can be extended either ex contractu or ex lege. Because contractual support rights are of limited use to poor women, the legacy of the majority judgments in Volks v Robinson 2005 5 BCLR 446 (CC) (Volks) must be confronted to strengthen the legal basis for an automatic duty of support to all women in unmarried intimate relationships. The argument in Volks that, women choose to forego legal rights by not getting married is criticised. The minority judgment in Laubscher v Duplan 2017 2 SA 264 (CC) does, however, create potential for overturning this reasoning. &nbsp

Exploring Universal Partnerships and Putative Marriages as Tools for Awarding Partnership Property in Contemporary Family Law

Following upon the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment in Butters v Mncora, which broadened the criteria and consequences of universal partnerships in cohabitation relationships, this article investigates the potential of universal partnerships and putative marriages to allocate rights to share in partnership property in other intimate relationships. It traverses several instances in which marriages are not recognised - bigamous marriages, Muslim and Hindu religious marriages and invalid customary marriages – examining whether the wives in these marriages could use universal partnerships and putative marriages to claim a share in property. It then considers the use of universal partnerships to obtain a share of property in civil marriages out of community of property. It concludes by pointing out several issues which are in need of clarification and where the common law should be developed to give effect to fundamental constitutional rights.      &nbsp

A Duty of Support for All South African Unmarried Intimate Partners Part I

The democratic Constitutional dispensation has led to the gradual extension of spousal duties of support to unmarried couples who hitherto could not legally claim support from their partners or from third parties who had unlawfully caused the death of their partners. The new recipients of rights to support can be divided into three groups: wives in Muslim religious marriages, partners in same-sex intimate relationships and unmarried opposite sex cohabitants whose relationships closely resemble civil marriage in both form and function. However, certain distinctive features of customary marriage, the continuing consequences of apartheid policies for African families and certain distinctive patrilineal features of traditional African families have largely excluded African women – who constitute the largest and most economically vulnerable group of women – from the benefits of these developments. Part one of this two-part article analyses the trajectory of the developing right to support intimate partnerships which appears to be based either on marriage (in the case of Muslim marriages) or similarity to marriage, including monogamy and permanent co-residence in the case of same-sex and opposite sex partners. This leaves no room to extend rights to unmarried intimate partners whose relationships do not fit the template of civil marriage, and, in particular, excludes many disadvantaged African women from obtaining legal rights to support from their relationships.   &nbsp

A Duty of Support for All South African Unmarried Intimate Partners Part 2: Developing Customary and Common Law and Circumventing the Volks Judgment

Part I of this two-part article argued that post-constitutional developments of the right to support have excluded the largest and most vulnerable sector of South African women – African women in invalid customary marriages and in intimate partnerships which do not resemble monogamous Western nuclear households. Part II explores the avenues to develop customary and common law to extend rights to support to these women. It argues that the current position discriminates against poor, rural African women on multiple intersecting grounds, which creates a duty for courts to develop the current legal rules. Customary law affords scope for development in relation to women in invalid customary marriages. Common law rights to support can be extended either ex contractu or ex lege. Because contractual support rights are of limited use to poor women, the legacy of the majority judgments in Volks v Robinson 2005 5 BCLR 446 (CC) (Volks) must be confronted to strengthen the legal basis for an automatic duty of support to all women in unmarried intimate relationships. The argument in Volks that, women choose to forego legal rights by not getting married is criticised. The minority judgment in Laubscher v Duplan 2017 2 SA 264 (CC) does, however, create potential for overturning this reasoning.Keywords:Duty of support; customary law; contract; choice to marry

Death of the Breadwinner and the Continuation of the Duty of Spousal Support: Discrepancies and Inequalities for Different Categories of Surviving Partners

This note considers the extension of the duty of spousal support after the death of the breadwinner by comparing the rights of different categories of surviving maintenance claimants, who tend to be mostly women: widows of the deceased, unmarried intimate partners of the deceased and ex-wives and ex-partners of the deceased. Financial support can be provided from the deceased estate in the form of a right to share in the joint matrimonial estate, a right to intestate succession, a right to claim from the estate in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act and a right to claim for loss of support from third parties who who caused the death of the deceased breadwinner. Comparing different categories of women, it becomes clear that the law disproportionately benefits widows over other partners and that the rights of ex-spouses are being gradually eroded by the jurisprudence. There is also a discrepancy between rights to claim against deceased estates, which favours widows, on the one hand, and rights to claim against third parties, which is available to a far larger group of surviving maintenance claimants, on the other hand. The note analyses the gendered causes and consequences of these differences.&nbsp