A prenuptial agreement, antenuptial agreement, or premarital agreement, is a written contract entered into by a couple prior to marriage or a civil union that enables them to select and control many of the legal rights they acquire upon marrying, and what happens when their marriage eventually ends by death or divorce. Couples enter into a written prenuptial agreement to supersede many of the default marital laws that would otherwise apply in the event of divorce, such as the laws that govern the division of property, retirement benefits, savings, and the right to seek alimony with agreed-upon terms that provide certainty and clarify their marital rights. A premarital agreement may also contain waivers of a surviving spouse's right to claim an elective share of the estate of the deceased spouse.
Same-sex marriage in South Africa has been legal since the Civil Union Act, 2006 came into force on 30 November 2006. The decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie on 1 December 2005 extended the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex spouses—as the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equal protection before the law to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation—and gave Parliament one year to rectify the inequality in the marriage statutes. On 14 November 2006, the National Assembly passed a law allowing same-sex couples to legally solemnise their union 229 to 41, which was subsequently approved by the National Council of Provinces on 28 November in a 36 to 11 vote, and the law came into effect two days later. South Africa was the fifth country in the world and the first in Africa to legalise same-sex marriage.
Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [2005] ZACC 19, is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in which the court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The judgment, authored by Justice Albie Sachs and delivered on 1 December 2005, gave Parliament one year to pass the necessary legislation. As a result, the Civil Union Act came into force on 30 November 2006, making South Africa the fifth country in the world to recognise same-sex marriage.
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is an Act of the Parliament of India with provision for civil marriage for people of India and all Indian nationals in foreign countries, irrelevant of the religion or faith followed by either party. The Act originated from a piece of legislation proposed during the late 19th century. Marriages solemnized under Special Marriage Act are not governed by personal laws.
In South Africa, marriage exists in a number of different forms, as a result of the diversity of religions and cultures in the country. A man in South Africa may have more than one spouse but a South African woman may only have one spouse. Historically the legal definition of marriage, derived from the Roman-Dutch law, was limited to monogamous marriages between opposite-sex couples. Since 1998 the law has recognised marriages, including polygynous marriages, conducted under African customary law, as well as religious laws such as Islamic law. In 2006 the South African constitutional court ruled in favour of recognizing same-sex marriage. It is currently the only country in the world to recognise both polygamy and same-sex marriages, albeit not in conjunction.
The law of persons in South Africa regulates the birth, private-law status and the death of a natural person. It determines the requirements and qualifications for legal subjectivity in South Africa, and the rights and responsibilities that attach to it.
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.
The South African law of succession prescribes the rules which determine the devolution of a person's estate after his death, and all matters incidental thereto. It identifies the beneficiaries who are entitled to succeed to the deceased's estate, and the extent of the benefits they are to receive, and determines the different rights and duties that persons may have in a deceased's estate. It forms part of private law.
South African family law is concerned with those legal rules in South Africa which pertain to familial relationships. It may be defined as "that subdivision of material private law which researches, describes and regulates the origin, contents and dissolution of all legal relationships between: (i) husband and wife ; (ii) parents, guardians and children; and (iii) relatives related through blood and affinity."
"As far as family law is concerned, we in South Africa have it all. We have every kind of family; extended families, nuclear families, one-parent families, same-sex families, and in relation to each one of these there are controversy, difficulties and cases coming before the courts or due to come before the courts. This is the result of ancient history and recent history [...]. Our families are suffused with history, as family law is suffused with history, culture, belief and personality. For researchers it's a paradise, for judges a purgatory."
Daniels v Campbell NO and Others, an important case in South African law, was heard in the Constitutional Court on 6 November 2003, with judgment handed down on 11 March 2004. The applicant was a woman married in terms of Muslim rites, whose husband had died intestate. The court noted that Muslim marriages were not recognised in South African law. It concluded that this violated section 9 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it was held that the applicant could inherit. The ambit of this judgment was restricted to de facto monogamous Muslim marriages; it was extended to polygamous Muslim marriages in Hassam v Jacobs. In this Context the word "spouses" was questioned
Hassam v Jacobs NO and Others, an important case in South African law, was heard in the Constitutional Court on 19 February 2009, with judgment handed down on 15 July. The applicant was a party to a polygamous Muslim marriage, whose husband had died intestate. The Constitutional Court held that precluding the applicant from inheriting unfairly discriminated on the grounds of religion, marital status and gender, and was therefore inconsistent with section 9 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it was held that the applicant could inherit. The ambit of this judgment extended the ruling in Daniels v Campbell to polygamous Muslim marriages.
Bhe and Others v Magistrate, Khayelitsha and Others; Shibi v Sithole and Others; SA Human Rights Commission and Another v President of the RSA and Another was an important case in South African customary law.
Mthembu v Letsela and Another, an important case in South African customary law, was heard in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Le Roux J on 21 November 1996, with judgment handed down on 25 November.
Gory v Kolver NO is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which ruled that a same-sex life partner was entitled to inherit the estate of the other partner who died intestate.
The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, 1998 is a South African statute in terms of which marriages performed under African customary law, including polygynous marriages, are recognised as legal marriages. It also reformed the law relating to the legal status of women in customary marriages, the financial consequences of a customary marriage and the dissolution of customary marriages, replacing the customary law with statutory provisions. The act was signed by President Nelson Mandela on 20 November 1998 but only came into force on 15 November 2000.
The facts of the case in Casey v The Master, an important case in the South African law of succession, the deceased and her husband were married in community of property and had a joint will, whereby both spouses bequeathed their half of the joint estate to each other. Being safety-conscious, each night the deceased's husband slept with a loaded revolver under his pillow. One night the revolver accidentally went off while the couple was sleeping; the bullet struck the deceased, who subsequently died. The deceased's husband was convicted of culpable homicide.
In Volks NO v Robinson and Others, an important case in South African family and succession law, a Mrs. Robinson had been in a permanent life partnership with one Mr. Shandling. They had lived together as husband and wife from 1985 until Mr Shandling's death in 2001. Mr. Shandling had supported Mrs. Robinson. When. Mr Shandling died— Volks was his executor— he left Mrs. Robinson a small legacy, but Mrs. Robinson sued additionally for maintenance.
In Kirsten v Bailey, an important case in the South African law of succession, a testatrix made three wills. In the first and third, Bailey was nominated as the sole beneficiary of her estate; in the second will, Kirsten was nominated as the sole beneficiary. Kirsten challenged the validity of the third will.
In Ex Parte Lutchman, an important case in South African succession law, the deceased had left certain property to his six children in equal shares in a validly executed will. One of the deceased's children took out three life insurance policies on his father's life and explained to his father that in order for him to get the benefits of the policies when he died, he must draft a new will. The only provision in the second will was that the son was appointed the sole heir of the insurance policies, so he did not deal with any of the rest of his estate. Furthermore, he accidentally included a revocation clause in the new will, so its effect was that everything except the insurance policies devolved according to the law of intestate succession. At that stage, extra-marital children of persons marriage in terms of Hindu custom could not inherit intestate. The children of the deceased approached the court to declare the second will invalid insofar as it revoked the previous will. The court held that the revocation clause in the second will was obviously a mistake, so this clause was held to be pro non scripto.
Intestate succession in South African law takes place whenever the deceased leaves property which has not been disposed of by valid testamentary instrument. In other words, the law of intestate succession applies only:
