BRILLIANT TUTORS
MNM2615
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2024 -
DUE 23 August
2024
[Year]
[Type the company address]
, Book
Marketing in Africa
MNM2615 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE
23 August 2024 ; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
QUESTION 1 Background and key concepts should not be more than half a
page (5 marks for the background and key concepts). (5) Then answer the
following questions:
Background and Key Concepts
In the case of Gumede v President of the Republic of South Africa & Others (CCT 50/08
[2008] ZACC 23, 2009(3) BCLR 243), Mrs. Lungiswa Gumede challenged the constitutionality
of provisions in the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA) 120 of 1998. These
provisions treated marriages entered into before and after the Act differently, impacting property
rights. Before the RCMA, customary marriages did not grant women property rights, which was
governed by the KwaZulu Act on the Code of Zulu Law. Mrs. Gumede argued that this
differentiation violated her constitutional rights to equality and dignity.
Key concepts involved in this case include:
Customary Marriages: Marriages conducted according to traditional customs.
Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA): Legislation aimed at recognizing
and regulating customary marriages.
Equality and Dignity: Constitutional rights ensuring equal treatment and respect for all
individuals.
Community of Property: A marital property regime where spouses share ownership of
all assets acquired during the marriage.
Primogeniture: A customary rule favoring the eldest male descendant in inheritance
matters.
(i) The Facts of the Case (5)
Mrs. Gumede was married to Mr. Gumede under customary law before the RCMA's enactment.
Their marriage was governed by the KwaZulu Act on the Code of Zulu Law, which did not grant
her property rights. Upon their marriage's dissolution, Mrs. Gumede sought a share of the
matrimonial property, arguing that the pre-RCMA customary law violated her constitutional
rights. She challenged the RCMA provisions differentiating pre-Act and post-Act marriages,
claiming they were discriminatory.
MNM2615
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2024 -
DUE 23 August
2024
[Year]
[Type the company address]
, Book
Marketing in Africa
MNM2615 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE
23 August 2024 ; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
QUESTION 1 Background and key concepts should not be more than half a
page (5 marks for the background and key concepts). (5) Then answer the
following questions:
Background and Key Concepts
In the case of Gumede v President of the Republic of South Africa & Others (CCT 50/08
[2008] ZACC 23, 2009(3) BCLR 243), Mrs. Lungiswa Gumede challenged the constitutionality
of provisions in the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA) 120 of 1998. These
provisions treated marriages entered into before and after the Act differently, impacting property
rights. Before the RCMA, customary marriages did not grant women property rights, which was
governed by the KwaZulu Act on the Code of Zulu Law. Mrs. Gumede argued that this
differentiation violated her constitutional rights to equality and dignity.
Key concepts involved in this case include:
Customary Marriages: Marriages conducted according to traditional customs.
Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA): Legislation aimed at recognizing
and regulating customary marriages.
Equality and Dignity: Constitutional rights ensuring equal treatment and respect for all
individuals.
Community of Property: A marital property regime where spouses share ownership of
all assets acquired during the marriage.
Primogeniture: A customary rule favoring the eldest male descendant in inheritance
matters.
(i) The Facts of the Case (5)
Mrs. Gumede was married to Mr. Gumede under customary law before the RCMA's enactment.
Their marriage was governed by the KwaZulu Act on the Code of Zulu Law, which did not grant
her property rights. Upon their marriage's dissolution, Mrs. Gumede sought a share of the
matrimonial property, arguing that the pre-RCMA customary law violated her constitutional
rights. She challenged the RCMA provisions differentiating pre-Act and post-Act marriages,
claiming they were discriminatory.
