, LJU4804 OCTOBER / NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
DUE DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 Material validity of the marriage (2)
The material validity of the Singhs’ marriage is governed by the law of each party’s domicile
at the time of the marriage. Since both parties were domiciled in England in December
2015, English law determines their capacity to marry.1
1.2 Evasion of English law (6)
The answer may be different if the parties deliberately married in Hawaii to evade English
law. Under the doctrine of evasion of law, a court may refuse to recognise a marriage
where the parties deliberately circumvent a mandatory legal requirement of the law
governing their capacity to marry. The fact that the marriage complied with Hawaiian law
would not necessarily resolve the issue, because both parties remained domiciled in
England. The South African court would therefore have to consider whether the deliberate
evasion of the English parental-consent requirement prevents recognition of the marriage.2
1.3 Formal validity of the marriage (2)
The formal validity of the Singhs’ marriage is governed by the lex loci celebrationis,
meaning the law of the place where the marriage was solemnised. Since the marriage took
place in Hawaii, Hawaiian law determines whether the required marriage formalities were
satisfied.3
1.4 Applicable law in divorce matters (2)
1
Forsyth, Private International Law: The Modern Roman-Dutch Law Including the Jurisdiction of the High
Courts (5th ed, 2012)
2
Forsyth, Private International Law (5th ed, 2012)
3
M v M (A216/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 36, para 11; see also Pretorius v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O) 147–149.
DUE DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 Material validity of the marriage (2)
The material validity of the Singhs’ marriage is governed by the law of each party’s domicile
at the time of the marriage. Since both parties were domiciled in England in December
2015, English law determines their capacity to marry.1
1.2 Evasion of English law (6)
The answer may be different if the parties deliberately married in Hawaii to evade English
law. Under the doctrine of evasion of law, a court may refuse to recognise a marriage
where the parties deliberately circumvent a mandatory legal requirement of the law
governing their capacity to marry. The fact that the marriage complied with Hawaiian law
would not necessarily resolve the issue, because both parties remained domiciled in
England. The South African court would therefore have to consider whether the deliberate
evasion of the English parental-consent requirement prevents recognition of the marriage.2
1.3 Formal validity of the marriage (2)
The formal validity of the Singhs’ marriage is governed by the lex loci celebrationis,
meaning the law of the place where the marriage was solemnised. Since the marriage took
place in Hawaii, Hawaiian law determines whether the required marriage formalities were
satisfied.3
1.4 Applicable law in divorce matters (2)
1
Forsyth, Private International Law: The Modern Roman-Dutch Law Including the Jurisdiction of the High
Courts (5th ed, 2012)
2
Forsyth, Private International Law (5th ed, 2012)
3
M v M (A216/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 36, para 11; see also Pretorius v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O) 147–149.
