,PVL2602
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2026
DUE DATE: 17 AUGUST 2026
FOR MORE ASSIGNMENTS AND ASSISTANCE:
WHATSAPP 0662594903
, QUESTION 1
1.1 Comprehensive Advice to Nomsa on Mandla’s Claim to the Estate
Mandla’s assertion that he is the sole heir to Xolani’s estate based on the customary law
rule of male primogeniture is unfounded and legally incorrect. Nomsa and her two children
possess the sole lawful claim to the entire estate.
1. Validity of the Unregistered Customary Marriage
Mandla cannot challenge Nomsa’s legal status as a surviving spouse on the basis that their
2005 customary marriage was never registered with the Department of Home Affairs.
Section 4(9) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 explicitly provides
that the failure to register a customary marriage does not affect the validity of that
marriage.1 Provided that the essential requirements of Section 3(1) of the Act were met—
namely, that the parties were over 18, consented to be married under customary law, and
the marriage was negotiated and entered into or celebrated in accordance with customary
law—the marriage is fully valid in the eyes of the law. Nomsa is therefore recognized as
Xolani’s lawful surviving spouse.2
2. Unconstitutionality of Male Primogeniture
Mandla’s claim relies on traditional customary law which dictated that property passed
exclusively to a male relative under the rule of male primogeniture. However, in the seminal
judgment of Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha,3 the Constitutional Court declared the
customary rule of male primogeniture unconstitutional and invalid. The Court held that the
rule violated Section 9(3) and Section 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996, by unfairly discriminating against women and children on the grounds of gender, birth,
and age, while also violating their inherent human dignity.
3. Application of the Timeline and the Interim Bhe Regime
1
Section 4(9) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998.
2
Mgwena v Government of the Republic of South Africa 2007 (5) SA 334 (Tk); Recognition of Customary
Marriages Act 120 of 1998, s 3(1).
3
Bhe and Others v Magistrate, Khayelitsha, and Others; Shibi v Sithole and Others; South African Human
Rights Commission and Another v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC)
at paras 91–93.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2026
DUE DATE: 17 AUGUST 2026
FOR MORE ASSIGNMENTS AND ASSISTANCE:
WHATSAPP 0662594903
, QUESTION 1
1.1 Comprehensive Advice to Nomsa on Mandla’s Claim to the Estate
Mandla’s assertion that he is the sole heir to Xolani’s estate based on the customary law
rule of male primogeniture is unfounded and legally incorrect. Nomsa and her two children
possess the sole lawful claim to the entire estate.
1. Validity of the Unregistered Customary Marriage
Mandla cannot challenge Nomsa’s legal status as a surviving spouse on the basis that their
2005 customary marriage was never registered with the Department of Home Affairs.
Section 4(9) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 explicitly provides
that the failure to register a customary marriage does not affect the validity of that
marriage.1 Provided that the essential requirements of Section 3(1) of the Act were met—
namely, that the parties were over 18, consented to be married under customary law, and
the marriage was negotiated and entered into or celebrated in accordance with customary
law—the marriage is fully valid in the eyes of the law. Nomsa is therefore recognized as
Xolani’s lawful surviving spouse.2
2. Unconstitutionality of Male Primogeniture
Mandla’s claim relies on traditional customary law which dictated that property passed
exclusively to a male relative under the rule of male primogeniture. However, in the seminal
judgment of Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha,3 the Constitutional Court declared the
customary rule of male primogeniture unconstitutional and invalid. The Court held that the
rule violated Section 9(3) and Section 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996, by unfairly discriminating against women and children on the grounds of gender, birth,
and age, while also violating their inherent human dignity.
3. Application of the Timeline and the Interim Bhe Regime
1
Section 4(9) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998.
2
Mgwena v Government of the Republic of South Africa 2007 (5) SA 334 (Tk); Recognition of Customary
Marriages Act 120 of 1998, s 3(1).
3
Bhe and Others v Magistrate, Khayelitsha, and Others; Shibi v Sithole and Others; South African Human
Rights Commission and Another v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC)
at paras 91–93.
