, LJU4804
OCTOBER / NOVEMBER
(PORTFOLIO) 2026
DUE 19 OCTOBER 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 The material validity of the Singhs' marriage is governed by English law (the law of the parties'
common domicile at the time of marriage).¹
1.2 The answer may change. If the parties went to Hawaii to evade the English law requirement of
parental consent, South African private international law may refuse to recognize the marriage's
material validity under the fraus legis (evasion of law) doctrine.² The key lies in determining
whether the evasion of English law was intentional, thereby denying the application of the chosen
foreign law (Hawaii law).³
1.3 The formal validity of the marriage is governed by Hawaiian law (lex loci celebrationis, the law
of the place where the marriage was celebrated).⁴
1.4 Divorce matters are governed by South African law (lex fori, the law of the forum), because the
parties have acquired domicile in South Africa and the divorce proceedings were instituted in a
South African High Court.⁵
1.5 Will be recognized as formally valid. According to the Wills Act 7 of 1953, section 3bis(1)(e), a
will executed on board a vessel shall not be invalid merely by reason of its form if its form complies
with the law of the state or territory in which the vessel was registered at the time of execution.⁶
The MS Sovereign was registered in Spain, and the will's form complies with Spanish law; therefore,
the South African court will recognize it as formally valid.⁷
1.6 Not valid. Section 3bis(1)(c) provides that, where the exercise of a power of appointment
conferred by an instrument is involved, the will shall not be invalid merely by reason of its form if
its form complies with the law of the state or territory in which that instrument (i.e., the original
instrument conferring the power) was executed.⁸ The original instrument (Mr Singh's will) was
executed on board a vessel registered in Spain, so the law of Spain should apply. However, the
problem states that Mrs Singh's will is formally invalid in all possible testing systems but formally
valid under Spanish law. Since Spanish law is the applicable law for determining formal validity
under section 3bis(1)(c), and the will is formally valid under Spanish law, the exercise of the power
of appointment should be recognized as valid.⁹
OCTOBER / NOVEMBER
(PORTFOLIO) 2026
DUE 19 OCTOBER 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 The material validity of the Singhs' marriage is governed by English law (the law of the parties'
common domicile at the time of marriage).¹
1.2 The answer may change. If the parties went to Hawaii to evade the English law requirement of
parental consent, South African private international law may refuse to recognize the marriage's
material validity under the fraus legis (evasion of law) doctrine.² The key lies in determining
whether the evasion of English law was intentional, thereby denying the application of the chosen
foreign law (Hawaii law).³
1.3 The formal validity of the marriage is governed by Hawaiian law (lex loci celebrationis, the law
of the place where the marriage was celebrated).⁴
1.4 Divorce matters are governed by South African law (lex fori, the law of the forum), because the
parties have acquired domicile in South Africa and the divorce proceedings were instituted in a
South African High Court.⁵
1.5 Will be recognized as formally valid. According to the Wills Act 7 of 1953, section 3bis(1)(e), a
will executed on board a vessel shall not be invalid merely by reason of its form if its form complies
with the law of the state or territory in which the vessel was registered at the time of execution.⁶
The MS Sovereign was registered in Spain, and the will's form complies with Spanish law; therefore,
the South African court will recognize it as formally valid.⁷
1.6 Not valid. Section 3bis(1)(c) provides that, where the exercise of a power of appointment
conferred by an instrument is involved, the will shall not be invalid merely by reason of its form if
its form complies with the law of the state or territory in which that instrument (i.e., the original
instrument conferring the power) was executed.⁸ The original instrument (Mr Singh's will) was
executed on board a vessel registered in Spain, so the law of Spain should apply. However, the
problem states that Mrs Singh's will is formally invalid in all possible testing systems but formally
valid under Spanish law. Since Spanish law is the applicable law for determining formal validity
under section 3bis(1)(c), and the will is formally valid under Spanish law, the exercise of the power
of appointment should be recognized as valid.⁹
