LJU4804
May/June Exam
Memo | Due 9 -
16 May 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[DATE]
[COMPANY NAME]
[Company address]
,QUESTION 1 Instructions: Read the set of facts below and answer the
questions that follow. Michael and Martha Kumwenda got married in
Mauritius in December 1983. They concluded an antenuptial contract
excluding all forms of accrual and of profit and loss. At that time, they were
Zambian citizens and Martha was domiciled in Lusaka and working there as a
senior accountant, while Michael was working in New York on a two-year
fixed term contract with the possibility of further renewal. They relocated to
Johannesburg in January 1985 and established a domicile there. Michael
assumed the position of chief operations officer (COO) of a cellular service
provider and Martha obtained a position as chartered accountant at Deloitte.
One child with special needs was born from the marriage in 1995 and Martha
resigned from her work to look after him full-time. In 2023, Martha filed for
divorce in the South Gauteng High Court. She also applied for a redistribution
of assets. 1.1 Which legal system applies to the formal validity of Michael
and Martha’s marriage in terms of the South African rules of private
international law? (2)
1.1 Answer:
The legal system that applies to the formal validity of Michael and Martha’s marriage, in terms
of South African private international law, is the law of the place where the marriage was
celebrated (lex loci celebrationis).
Since they were married in Mauritius, the law of Mauritius governs the formal validity of their
marriage.
✅ Answer: The law of Mauritius (lex loci celebrationis).
(2 marks)
1.2.1 Which legal system applies to the material validity of Michael and
Martha’s marriage in terms of the South African rules of private international
law? (2)
1.2.1 Answer:
, The legal system that applies to the material validity of Michael and Martha’s marriage,
according to South African private international law, is the law of each party’s domicile at the
time of the marriage.
At the time of the marriage:
Martha was domiciled in Lusaka, Zambia, and
Michael was likely still domiciled in Zambia, despite working temporarily in New York
on a fixed-term contract.
Therefore, the material validity of the marriage is governed by Zambian law, which was the law
of their respective domiciles at the time.
✅ Answer: The law of Zambia (law of the parties’ domiciles at the time of marriage).
(2 marks)
1.2.2 Provide a brief discussion of the exceptions to the rule in 1.2.1. (6)
1.2.2 Answer:
There are two main exceptions to the rule that the material validity of a marriage is governed by
the law of each party’s domicile at the time of the marriage:
1. Marriage of Convenience / Evasion of Law:
If a party temporarily changes their domicile or residence in order to evade the material
requirements of their own domiciliary law (e.g., minimum age, consent rules, or
prohibitions), the courts may ignore the new domicile and still apply the original law.
This prevents abuse of the system.
2. Public Policy (Ordre Public):
Even if a marriage is materially valid under the law of the parties’ domiciles, it may still
be declared invalid in South Africa if it violates South African public policy (e.g.,
marriages involving minors without consent, forced marriages, or polygamous marriages
in conflict with constitutional principles).
✅ Summary: Exceptions include (1) evasion of domiciliary law, and (2) incompatibility with
South African public policy.
May/June Exam
Memo | Due 9 -
16 May 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[DATE]
[COMPANY NAME]
[Company address]
,QUESTION 1 Instructions: Read the set of facts below and answer the
questions that follow. Michael and Martha Kumwenda got married in
Mauritius in December 1983. They concluded an antenuptial contract
excluding all forms of accrual and of profit and loss. At that time, they were
Zambian citizens and Martha was domiciled in Lusaka and working there as a
senior accountant, while Michael was working in New York on a two-year
fixed term contract with the possibility of further renewal. They relocated to
Johannesburg in January 1985 and established a domicile there. Michael
assumed the position of chief operations officer (COO) of a cellular service
provider and Martha obtained a position as chartered accountant at Deloitte.
One child with special needs was born from the marriage in 1995 and Martha
resigned from her work to look after him full-time. In 2023, Martha filed for
divorce in the South Gauteng High Court. She also applied for a redistribution
of assets. 1.1 Which legal system applies to the formal validity of Michael
and Martha’s marriage in terms of the South African rules of private
international law? (2)
1.1 Answer:
The legal system that applies to the formal validity of Michael and Martha’s marriage, in terms
of South African private international law, is the law of the place where the marriage was
celebrated (lex loci celebrationis).
Since they were married in Mauritius, the law of Mauritius governs the formal validity of their
marriage.
✅ Answer: The law of Mauritius (lex loci celebrationis).
(2 marks)
1.2.1 Which legal system applies to the material validity of Michael and
Martha’s marriage in terms of the South African rules of private international
law? (2)
1.2.1 Answer:
, The legal system that applies to the material validity of Michael and Martha’s marriage,
according to South African private international law, is the law of each party’s domicile at the
time of the marriage.
At the time of the marriage:
Martha was domiciled in Lusaka, Zambia, and
Michael was likely still domiciled in Zambia, despite working temporarily in New York
on a fixed-term contract.
Therefore, the material validity of the marriage is governed by Zambian law, which was the law
of their respective domiciles at the time.
✅ Answer: The law of Zambia (law of the parties’ domiciles at the time of marriage).
(2 marks)
1.2.2 Provide a brief discussion of the exceptions to the rule in 1.2.1. (6)
1.2.2 Answer:
There are two main exceptions to the rule that the material validity of a marriage is governed by
the law of each party’s domicile at the time of the marriage:
1. Marriage of Convenience / Evasion of Law:
If a party temporarily changes their domicile or residence in order to evade the material
requirements of their own domiciliary law (e.g., minimum age, consent rules, or
prohibitions), the courts may ignore the new domicile and still apply the original law.
This prevents abuse of the system.
2. Public Policy (Ordre Public):
Even if a marriage is materially valid under the law of the parties’ domiciles, it may still
be declared invalid in South Africa if it violates South African public policy (e.g.,
marriages involving minors without consent, forced marriages, or polygamous marriages
in conflict with constitutional principles).
✅ Summary: Exceptions include (1) evasion of domiciliary law, and (2) incompatibility with
South African public policy.
