LJU4804 PORTFILIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
17 October 2025
[Document subtitle]
[School]
[Course title]
,LJU4804 PORTFILIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 17 October 2025
Course
Private International Law (LJU4804)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Private International Law
LJU4804 PORTFILIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 17 October 2025; 100%
TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
Use proper language and grammar and make use of full sentences. 8. Note that all portfolios
will be scrutinised for plagiarism through the use of Turnitin. Any information provided that is
not in your own words and properly referenced, will be flagged by Turnitin. Be reminded that
Turnitin also compares all student assignment submissions with each other and instances of
academic dishonesty or students copying from each other, will also be identified. Instances of AI
writing are also det ected by Turnitin. Cases of plagiarism or academic dishonesty will be dealt
with in accordance with the University's policies. Mr and Mrs Mubanga got married in Mauritius
in December 1982. At the time of concluding the marriage they were both Zambian citizens and
domiciled there as well. They concluded an antenuptial contract that excludes community of
property and all forms of profit sharing. Early in January 1983, the parties relocated to Pretoria
(South Africa) and established a domicile there. The reason for the relocation was that Mrs
Mubanga took up an offer as senior executive of a large retail company based in South Africa.
Mrs Mubanga was already involved in negotiations in respect of this lucrative employment
opportunity some months prior to the marriage. Two children were born from the marriage and
Mr Mubanga looked after them full-time. In 2017, Mr Mubanga instituted divorce proceedings
against Mrs Mubanga in the North Gauteng High Court. LJU4801 1 In 1984, Mrs Mubanga gave
Mr Mubanga a very expensive Rolex watch as a gift. The question of the validity of donations
between spouses arose during the divorce proceedings. In terms of South African law,
donations between spouses are regarded as a personal consequence of marriage. Suppose that
donations between spouses are regarded as a proprietary consequence of marriage under
, Zambian law. 1.1 Which legal system governs personal consequences of marriage in terms of
the rules of South African private international law? (1) 1.2 Which legal system governs the
proprietary consequences of marriage in terms of the rules of South African private
international law? (1) 1.3 Which legal system will the South African court apply to the validity of
the donation between the spouses if it follows the via media approach to classification? 2 Mr
Mubanga’s legal representatives plan to argue that the parties intended to immigrate to South
Africa at the time of entering into the marriage, since Mrs Mubanga was already involved in
negotiations with the retail group in respect of her appointment. Advise his legal team on 3
their chances of successfully arguing in favour of intended matrimonial domicile as alternative
connecting factor for determining the law applicable to the proprietary consequences of
marriage. Your ans wer should be based on a proper discussion of the prescribed case Sadiku v
Sadiku Case no 30498/06 (unreported) [2007] JOL 19342 (T). Mr and Mrs Hendricks got married
in Madagascar in December 1999. At the time of entering into the marriage they were both
Namibian citizens, domiciled in England. Mrs Hendricks moved to London, England in 1997 to
pursue a modelling career. Mr Hendricks took up a permanent position as an engineer in
London in 1998 and established a domicile there. In 2001, the parties relocated to Pretoria
(South Africa) and became domiciled there. The reason for the relocation was that Mrs
Hendricks was offered a long-term modelling contract by a large South African clothing
company. In 2017, Mr Hendricks instituted divorce proceedings against Mrs Hendricks in the
North Gauteng High Court. 1.1 Which legal system applies to the material validity of the
marriage according to the principles of South African private international law?
Question 1.1
Which legal system governs the personal consequences of marriage in terms of the rules of
South African private international law?
In South African private international law, the personal consequences of marriage are governed
by the lex domicilii matrimonii, which is the law of the husband’s domicile at the time of the
marriage. The personal consequences of marriage refer to rights and duties that arise from the
marital relationship itself — for example, the duty of support, consortium, and fidelity between
spouses.
At the time of their marriage in December 1982, both Mr and Mrs Mubanga were Zambian
citizens and domiciled in Zambia. Therefore, the husband’s domicile at the time of the marriage
was Zambia. According to the established South African conflict of laws rule, Zambia’s legal
system governs the personal consequences of their marriage.
In conclusion, Zambian law determines the personal consequences of the Mubangas’ marriage,
as both parties were domiciled there when they entered into the marriage.
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
17 October 2025
[Document subtitle]
[School]
[Course title]
,LJU4804 PORTFILIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 17 October 2025
Course
Private International Law (LJU4804)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Private International Law
LJU4804 PORTFILIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 17 October 2025; 100%
TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
Use proper language and grammar and make use of full sentences. 8. Note that all portfolios
will be scrutinised for plagiarism through the use of Turnitin. Any information provided that is
not in your own words and properly referenced, will be flagged by Turnitin. Be reminded that
Turnitin also compares all student assignment submissions with each other and instances of
academic dishonesty or students copying from each other, will also be identified. Instances of AI
writing are also det ected by Turnitin. Cases of plagiarism or academic dishonesty will be dealt
with in accordance with the University's policies. Mr and Mrs Mubanga got married in Mauritius
in December 1982. At the time of concluding the marriage they were both Zambian citizens and
domiciled there as well. They concluded an antenuptial contract that excludes community of
property and all forms of profit sharing. Early in January 1983, the parties relocated to Pretoria
(South Africa) and established a domicile there. The reason for the relocation was that Mrs
Mubanga took up an offer as senior executive of a large retail company based in South Africa.
Mrs Mubanga was already involved in negotiations in respect of this lucrative employment
opportunity some months prior to the marriage. Two children were born from the marriage and
Mr Mubanga looked after them full-time. In 2017, Mr Mubanga instituted divorce proceedings
against Mrs Mubanga in the North Gauteng High Court. LJU4801 1 In 1984, Mrs Mubanga gave
Mr Mubanga a very expensive Rolex watch as a gift. The question of the validity of donations
between spouses arose during the divorce proceedings. In terms of South African law,
donations between spouses are regarded as a personal consequence of marriage. Suppose that
donations between spouses are regarded as a proprietary consequence of marriage under
, Zambian law. 1.1 Which legal system governs personal consequences of marriage in terms of
the rules of South African private international law? (1) 1.2 Which legal system governs the
proprietary consequences of marriage in terms of the rules of South African private
international law? (1) 1.3 Which legal system will the South African court apply to the validity of
the donation between the spouses if it follows the via media approach to classification? 2 Mr
Mubanga’s legal representatives plan to argue that the parties intended to immigrate to South
Africa at the time of entering into the marriage, since Mrs Mubanga was already involved in
negotiations with the retail group in respect of her appointment. Advise his legal team on 3
their chances of successfully arguing in favour of intended matrimonial domicile as alternative
connecting factor for determining the law applicable to the proprietary consequences of
marriage. Your ans wer should be based on a proper discussion of the prescribed case Sadiku v
Sadiku Case no 30498/06 (unreported) [2007] JOL 19342 (T). Mr and Mrs Hendricks got married
in Madagascar in December 1999. At the time of entering into the marriage they were both
Namibian citizens, domiciled in England. Mrs Hendricks moved to London, England in 1997 to
pursue a modelling career. Mr Hendricks took up a permanent position as an engineer in
London in 1998 and established a domicile there. In 2001, the parties relocated to Pretoria
(South Africa) and became domiciled there. The reason for the relocation was that Mrs
Hendricks was offered a long-term modelling contract by a large South African clothing
company. In 2017, Mr Hendricks instituted divorce proceedings against Mrs Hendricks in the
North Gauteng High Court. 1.1 Which legal system applies to the material validity of the
marriage according to the principles of South African private international law?
Question 1.1
Which legal system governs the personal consequences of marriage in terms of the rules of
South African private international law?
In South African private international law, the personal consequences of marriage are governed
by the lex domicilii matrimonii, which is the law of the husband’s domicile at the time of the
marriage. The personal consequences of marriage refer to rights and duties that arise from the
marital relationship itself — for example, the duty of support, consortium, and fidelity between
spouses.
At the time of their marriage in December 1982, both Mr and Mrs Mubanga were Zambian
citizens and domiciled in Zambia. Therefore, the husband’s domicile at the time of the marriage
was Zambia. According to the established South African conflict of laws rule, Zambia’s legal
system governs the personal consequences of their marriage.
In conclusion, Zambian law determines the personal consequences of the Mubangas’ marriage,
as both parties were domiciled there when they entered into the marriage.
