[TYPE THE COMPANY NAME]
LJU4804 Assignment 2
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
15 September 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
,Exam (elaborations)
LJU4804 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 15
September 2025
Course
Private International Law (LJU4804)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
The South African Law of International Trade
LJU4804 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 (199151) -
DUE 15 September 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations. Ensure your success with us....
Maria Petrus and John Paulus met at high school in Windhoek, Namibia in
1979. They got married in December 1982 while on holiday in Botswana. At
the time of entering into the marriage, both Mr and Mrs Paulus were
Namibian citizens and Mrs Paulus was domiciled in Namibia as well. Mr
Paulus established a domicile of choice in Sheffield, England in 1980 when he
assumed permanent employment at a steel factory. He was domiciled there
at the time of concluding his marriage to Maria as well. Mr and Mrs Paulus
stayed in England until 1990 when Mr Paulus obtained a full-time position at
a factory in Rosslyn, South Africa. In January 1991, the parties immigrated to
Pretoria, South Africa, and established a domicile there. Two children were
born from the marriage and Mrs Paulus stayed at home to look after them. In
2017, Mrs Paulus instituted divorce proceedings against Mr Paulus in the
North Gauteng High Court. 1.1 Which legal system applies to the inherent
validity of the parties’ marriage in terms of the South African rules of private
international law? (2) 1.2 Assume that Maria was 17 years old at the time of
entering into the marriage and that the parties went to Botswana to evade
the rules of Namibian law that required parental consent for a minor to enter
into a marriage. Would your answer to question 1.1 be the same? (5) Assume
for purposes of questions 1.3 – 1.6 that the marriage is found to be
inherently and formally valid. 1.3 Assume that redistribution of assets is
classified as a divorce matter in English law and that divorce matters are
also governed by the law of the forum in terms of the rules of English private
international law. As you know, redistribution is classified as a proprietary
consequence of marriage under South African law. Which legal system
should be applied to the redistribution of the parties’ assets if via media
classification is followed? (Note: you have to explain what via media
classification is; provide the classification tables and reach a conclusion as to
the applicable law). (15) 1.4 Mr Paulus executed a will in Germany in which
, he granted a power of appointment of a final beneficiary to Mrs Paulus. At
the time of execution of the will, he was domiciled in England He retained his
Namibian citizenship throughout his life. Mrs Paulus executed this power of
appointment in a will drafted in England while also domiciled there. Mrs
Paulus’s will was formally invalid in terms of all its possible testing systems,
but formally valid in terms of German law. Was the power of appointment
validly executed in terms of the Wills Act 7 of 1953? (4) 1.5 Which legal
system would govern a maintenance claim by Mrs Paulus? (2) 1.6 The
connecting factor for proprietary consequences of marriage needs reform.
This point was also raised in the case of Sadiku v Sadiku (Case 30498/06
unreported). Discuss this case and proposals for reform of the connecting
factor with reference to your prescribed reading material in this regard. (12)
[40]
1.1 Inherent Validity of the Marriage
The inherent validity of the Paulus' marriage is governed by the lex domicilii of each spouse at
the time the marriage was concluded. This is because South African private international law
determines the material validity of a marriage based on the law of the domicile of each party at
the time of the marriage.
Mr. Paulus's lex domicilii at the time of marriage (December 1982) was English law, as
he had established a domicile of choice in Sheffield, England, in 1980.
Mrs. Paulus's lex domicilii at the time of marriage was Namibian law, as she was
domiciled in Namibia.
Therefore, the inherent validity of the marriage would be determined by whether the marriage
complied with both English law and Namibian law.
1.2 Evasion of the Law
No, the answer wouldn't be the same. When parties deliberately evade the law of their domicile
by getting married elsewhere to circumvent a legal requirement (in this case, parental consent),
the doctrine of evasion of the law comes into play. If the court finds that the parties intentionally
went to Botswana to avoid the Namibian requirement of parental consent for a minor, the
marriage would be considered invalid under South African private international law. The court
would apply the law that the parties intended to evade, which is Namibian law, and the marriage
would be invalid due to the lack of parental consent. This is because the principle of lex loci
celebrationis (the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated) does not apply to the
material validity of the marriage, especially when it's clear the parties were seeking to evade their
lex domicilii.
LJU4804 Assignment 2
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
15 September 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
,Exam (elaborations)
LJU4804 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 15
September 2025
Course
Private International Law (LJU4804)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
The South African Law of International Trade
LJU4804 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 (199151) -
DUE 15 September 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations. Ensure your success with us....
Maria Petrus and John Paulus met at high school in Windhoek, Namibia in
1979. They got married in December 1982 while on holiday in Botswana. At
the time of entering into the marriage, both Mr and Mrs Paulus were
Namibian citizens and Mrs Paulus was domiciled in Namibia as well. Mr
Paulus established a domicile of choice in Sheffield, England in 1980 when he
assumed permanent employment at a steel factory. He was domiciled there
at the time of concluding his marriage to Maria as well. Mr and Mrs Paulus
stayed in England until 1990 when Mr Paulus obtained a full-time position at
a factory in Rosslyn, South Africa. In January 1991, the parties immigrated to
Pretoria, South Africa, and established a domicile there. Two children were
born from the marriage and Mrs Paulus stayed at home to look after them. In
2017, Mrs Paulus instituted divorce proceedings against Mr Paulus in the
North Gauteng High Court. 1.1 Which legal system applies to the inherent
validity of the parties’ marriage in terms of the South African rules of private
international law? (2) 1.2 Assume that Maria was 17 years old at the time of
entering into the marriage and that the parties went to Botswana to evade
the rules of Namibian law that required parental consent for a minor to enter
into a marriage. Would your answer to question 1.1 be the same? (5) Assume
for purposes of questions 1.3 – 1.6 that the marriage is found to be
inherently and formally valid. 1.3 Assume that redistribution of assets is
classified as a divorce matter in English law and that divorce matters are
also governed by the law of the forum in terms of the rules of English private
international law. As you know, redistribution is classified as a proprietary
consequence of marriage under South African law. Which legal system
should be applied to the redistribution of the parties’ assets if via media
classification is followed? (Note: you have to explain what via media
classification is; provide the classification tables and reach a conclusion as to
the applicable law). (15) 1.4 Mr Paulus executed a will in Germany in which
, he granted a power of appointment of a final beneficiary to Mrs Paulus. At
the time of execution of the will, he was domiciled in England He retained his
Namibian citizenship throughout his life. Mrs Paulus executed this power of
appointment in a will drafted in England while also domiciled there. Mrs
Paulus’s will was formally invalid in terms of all its possible testing systems,
but formally valid in terms of German law. Was the power of appointment
validly executed in terms of the Wills Act 7 of 1953? (4) 1.5 Which legal
system would govern a maintenance claim by Mrs Paulus? (2) 1.6 The
connecting factor for proprietary consequences of marriage needs reform.
This point was also raised in the case of Sadiku v Sadiku (Case 30498/06
unreported). Discuss this case and proposals for reform of the connecting
factor with reference to your prescribed reading material in this regard. (12)
[40]
1.1 Inherent Validity of the Marriage
The inherent validity of the Paulus' marriage is governed by the lex domicilii of each spouse at
the time the marriage was concluded. This is because South African private international law
determines the material validity of a marriage based on the law of the domicile of each party at
the time of the marriage.
Mr. Paulus's lex domicilii at the time of marriage (December 1982) was English law, as
he had established a domicile of choice in Sheffield, England, in 1980.
Mrs. Paulus's lex domicilii at the time of marriage was Namibian law, as she was
domiciled in Namibia.
Therefore, the inherent validity of the marriage would be determined by whether the marriage
complied with both English law and Namibian law.
1.2 Evasion of the Law
No, the answer wouldn't be the same. When parties deliberately evade the law of their domicile
by getting married elsewhere to circumvent a legal requirement (in this case, parental consent),
the doctrine of evasion of the law comes into play. If the court finds that the parties intentionally
went to Botswana to avoid the Namibian requirement of parental consent for a minor, the
marriage would be considered invalid under South African private international law. The court
would apply the law that the parties intended to evade, which is Namibian law, and the marriage
would be invalid due to the lack of parental consent. This is because the principle of lex loci
celebrationis (the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated) does not apply to the
material validity of the marriage, especially when it's clear the parties were seeking to evade their
lex domicilii.
