MEMO – 21 OCTOBER
2021
CIVIL PROCEDURE
- UNISA
, QUESTION 1
(a) When determining why a magistrate’s court has jurisdiction to hear a matter, the
question is answered by reference to sections 28, 29 and 46 of the Magistrates’ Courts
Act, 32 of 1944, and not on the grounds of common law jurisdiction. Explain why this
is the case. (6)
The jurisdictional connecting factor ratione rei sitae is a common-law principle relevant
only in respect of property claims in the High Court. Common law principles do not
apply to claims in the magistrates’ courts, as the magistrate’s court is a “creature of
statute” which means that jurisdictional grounds are contained in the Magistrates Court
Act.
The jurisdiction of the regional magistrates’ courts in respect of divorce and related
matters is now as follows:
(a) Section 28(1A) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act provides that a regional magistrate’s
court shall have divorce jurisdiction over both or either party who is
(b) “(i) domiciled in the court’s area of jurisdiction on the date on which the proceedings
are instituted; or
(ii) ordinarily resident in the court’s area of jurisdiction on the said date and has been
ordinarily resident in the Republic for a period of not less than one year immediately
prior to that date”.
(b) Section 29(1B)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act provides that a regional division
shall have jurisdiction to determine actions relating to the nullity of a marriage and
divorce, as well as related matters. A regional magistrate’s court may also hear any
matter provided for in terms of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act.
(c) In terms of section 29(1B)(b), a regional magistrate’s court hearing any of these
matters shall have the same jurisdiction as any High Court regarding such matter.
Section 46(1) provides firstly that a magistrate’s court cannot grant a divorce. Divorce
affects the status of the parties and in principle matters of status must be decided by
the High Court. The section also states that a magistrate’s court will not have
jurisdiction in matters in which the “separation … of goods of married persons…” is