PVL2602 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
DUE 17 AUGUST 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 Mandla’s Claim to the Estate
Under the applicable legal principles governing intestate succession and
customary law:
In terms of the landmark Constitutional Court decision in Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha
(Commission for Gender Equality as Amicus Curiae); Shibi v Sithole; South African
Human Rights Commission v President of the Republic of South Africa 2005 (1) SA 580
(CC), the rule of male primogeniture was declared unconstitutional. The Court held that
section 23 of the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927 and the regulations promulgated
thereunder unfairly discriminated against women and extra-marital children on the
grounds of race, gender, and dignity, in violation of sections 9 and 10 of the
Constitution. The Court further ordered that, as from 15 October 2004, the Intestate
Succession Act 81 of 1987 must be applied to all intestate estates, irrespective of the
deceased’s cultural affiliation.
According to the facts, Xolani died on 14 May 2010, which is after 15 October
2004. Consequently, the Intestate Succession Act was already applicable to his estate
at the time of his death. The Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of
Related Matters Act 11 of 2009 (RCLSA) only came into operation on 20 September
2010, but this does not assist Mandla because the Intestate Succession Act already
governed Xolani’s estate through the Bhe decision. Mandla’s argument that Nomsa
cannot rely on the RCLSA is misplaced; Nomsa does not need to rely on the RCLSA
she relies on the Intestate Succession Act.
,In terms of the Intestate Succession Act, when a deceased is survived by a spouse and
descendants, the spouse and children inherit to the exclusion of siblings and other
collateral relatives. Mandla, as Xolani’s brother, falls into the collateral line and is
excluded by the surviving spouse and children. The fact that Xolani and Nomsa’s
customary marriage was never registered at the Department of Home Affairs does not
affect its validity for purposes of intestate succession, as the Recognition of Customary
Marriages Act 120 of 1998 recognises such marriages as valid even without
registration.
Mandla’s claim is incorrect. The rule of male primogeniture no longer applies, and
Nomsa and her children are the rightful heirs to Xolani’s estate under the Intestate
Succession Act.
1.2 Devolution of Xolani’s Estate (R2,100,000) (10)
Under the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987:
Xolani’s estate is valued at R2,100,000. There is no indication of a matrimonial property
regime (e.g., in community of property), so the full estate is available for intestate
distribution.
The heirs.
Xolani is survived by:
Nomsa, his customary wife (spouse); and
Two children, born from the marriage.
Section 1(1)(c) of the Intestate Succession Act.
According to section 1(1)(c), where a deceased is survived by a spouse and
descendants, the spouse inherits whichever is the greater of:
, a child’s share (also called a child’s portion); or
the statutory amount fixed from time to time by the Minister (currently R250,000).
The descendants inherit the residue (if any) of the intestate estate.
The child’s share in terms of section 1(4)(f) of the Intestate Succession Act.
Section 1(4)(f) defines a child’s share as the monetary value of the estate divided by the
number of children of the deceased who have either survived the deceased or
predeceased him but are survived by their descendants, plus the number of surviving
spouses.
Value of estate: R2,100,000
Children who survived Xolani: 2
Surviving spouses: 1 (Nomsa)
Total: 2 children + 1 spouse = 3
Child’s share = R2,100,000 ÷ 3 = R700,000
Nomsa’s share.
The child’s share (R700,000) is greater than the statutory amount (R250,000).
Therefore, in terms of section 1(1)(c), Nomsa inherits R700,000.
The residue and the children’s shares.
Residue = R2,100,000 – R700,000 = R1,400,000
The residue is divided equally among the two surviving children (section 1(4)(a)).
Each child receives: R1,400,000 ÷ 2 = R700,000
DUE 17 AUGUST 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 Mandla’s Claim to the Estate
Under the applicable legal principles governing intestate succession and
customary law:
In terms of the landmark Constitutional Court decision in Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha
(Commission for Gender Equality as Amicus Curiae); Shibi v Sithole; South African
Human Rights Commission v President of the Republic of South Africa 2005 (1) SA 580
(CC), the rule of male primogeniture was declared unconstitutional. The Court held that
section 23 of the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927 and the regulations promulgated
thereunder unfairly discriminated against women and extra-marital children on the
grounds of race, gender, and dignity, in violation of sections 9 and 10 of the
Constitution. The Court further ordered that, as from 15 October 2004, the Intestate
Succession Act 81 of 1987 must be applied to all intestate estates, irrespective of the
deceased’s cultural affiliation.
According to the facts, Xolani died on 14 May 2010, which is after 15 October
2004. Consequently, the Intestate Succession Act was already applicable to his estate
at the time of his death. The Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of
Related Matters Act 11 of 2009 (RCLSA) only came into operation on 20 September
2010, but this does not assist Mandla because the Intestate Succession Act already
governed Xolani’s estate through the Bhe decision. Mandla’s argument that Nomsa
cannot rely on the RCLSA is misplaced; Nomsa does not need to rely on the RCLSA
she relies on the Intestate Succession Act.
,In terms of the Intestate Succession Act, when a deceased is survived by a spouse and
descendants, the spouse and children inherit to the exclusion of siblings and other
collateral relatives. Mandla, as Xolani’s brother, falls into the collateral line and is
excluded by the surviving spouse and children. The fact that Xolani and Nomsa’s
customary marriage was never registered at the Department of Home Affairs does not
affect its validity for purposes of intestate succession, as the Recognition of Customary
Marriages Act 120 of 1998 recognises such marriages as valid even without
registration.
Mandla’s claim is incorrect. The rule of male primogeniture no longer applies, and
Nomsa and her children are the rightful heirs to Xolani’s estate under the Intestate
Succession Act.
1.2 Devolution of Xolani’s Estate (R2,100,000) (10)
Under the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987:
Xolani’s estate is valued at R2,100,000. There is no indication of a matrimonial property
regime (e.g., in community of property), so the full estate is available for intestate
distribution.
The heirs.
Xolani is survived by:
Nomsa, his customary wife (spouse); and
Two children, born from the marriage.
Section 1(1)(c) of the Intestate Succession Act.
According to section 1(1)(c), where a deceased is survived by a spouse and
descendants, the spouse inherits whichever is the greater of:
, a child’s share (also called a child’s portion); or
the statutory amount fixed from time to time by the Minister (currently R250,000).
The descendants inherit the residue (if any) of the intestate estate.
The child’s share in terms of section 1(4)(f) of the Intestate Succession Act.
Section 1(4)(f) defines a child’s share as the monetary value of the estate divided by the
number of children of the deceased who have either survived the deceased or
predeceased him but are survived by their descendants, plus the number of surviving
spouses.
Value of estate: R2,100,000
Children who survived Xolani: 2
Surviving spouses: 1 (Nomsa)
Total: 2 children + 1 spouse = 3
Child’s share = R2,100,000 ÷ 3 = R700,000
Nomsa’s share.
The child’s share (R700,000) is greater than the statutory amount (R250,000).
Therefore, in terms of section 1(1)(c), Nomsa inherits R700,000.
The residue and the children’s shares.
Residue = R2,100,000 – R700,000 = R1,400,000
The residue is divided equally among the two surviving children (section 1(4)(a)).
Each child receives: R1,400,000 ÷ 2 = R700,000
