LJU4804
Assignment 2
Unique No: 199151
Semester 2 2025
Due 15 September 2025
, LJU4804
Assignment 2: 199151
Semester 2 2025
Due 15 September 2025
QUESTION 1
1.1 Inherent validity of the marriage
In South African private international law, the inherent validity of a marriage is
determined by the lex domicilii matrimonii, namely the law of each spouse’s domicile
at the time of the marriage. 1
At the time of their marriage in December 1982, Maria was domiciled in Namibia, while
John had established a domicile of choice in Sheffield, England in 1980. Consequently,
Maria’s capacity to marry was governed by Namibian law, and John’s capacity was
governed by English law.
Conclusion: The marriage’s inherent validity was governed by Namibian law in respect
of Maria and English law in respect of John.
1.2 Minority and evasion of Namibian law
Where a party is domiciled in a legal system that imposes capacity restrictions, such as
requiring parental consent for a minor to marry, the parties cannot evade these rules by
marrying abroad. South African law does not recognize marriages that are deliberately
concluded in another country to evade mandatory domicile rules. 2
In this case, Maria, aged 17, required parental consent under Namibian law. Although
the parties married in Botswana, the Namibian rule on minority would still apply, and the
marriage would be inherently invalid.
Assignment 2
Unique No: 199151
Semester 2 2025
Due 15 September 2025
, LJU4804
Assignment 2: 199151
Semester 2 2025
Due 15 September 2025
QUESTION 1
1.1 Inherent validity of the marriage
In South African private international law, the inherent validity of a marriage is
determined by the lex domicilii matrimonii, namely the law of each spouse’s domicile
at the time of the marriage. 1
At the time of their marriage in December 1982, Maria was domiciled in Namibia, while
John had established a domicile of choice in Sheffield, England in 1980. Consequently,
Maria’s capacity to marry was governed by Namibian law, and John’s capacity was
governed by English law.
Conclusion: The marriage’s inherent validity was governed by Namibian law in respect
of Maria and English law in respect of John.
1.2 Minority and evasion of Namibian law
Where a party is domiciled in a legal system that imposes capacity restrictions, such as
requiring parental consent for a minor to marry, the parties cannot evade these rules by
marrying abroad. South African law does not recognize marriages that are deliberately
concluded in another country to evade mandatory domicile rules. 2
In this case, Maria, aged 17, required parental consent under Namibian law. Although
the parties married in Botswana, the Namibian rule on minority would still apply, and the
marriage would be inherently invalid.
