UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Law · School of Law
Private International Law
Assignment 1 · Unique Number: 250655
LJU4804
Module Code:
Private International Law
Module Name:
Assignment 1
Assignment:
250655
Unique Number:
30 March 2026 at 15:00 (CAT)
Due Date:
University of South Africa (UNISA)
Institution:
Semester 1, 2026
Semester:
OSCOLA
Referencing Style:
Submitted in partial ful
lment of the requirements for LJU4804 · Semester 1, 2026
,UNISA | LJU4804 Private International Law Assignment 1
Declaration
I declare that this assignment is my own work. I have not copied from any source, including
the study guide, and I have properly referenced all sources consulted in OSCOLA footnote for-
mat. I am aware that UNISA uses Turnitin to detect plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 20
,UNISA | LJU4804 Private International Law Assignment 1
Contents
Declaration 2
1 Part 1: The Kumar Scenario 4
1.1 Question 1.1: Material/Inherent Validity of the Kumars' Marriage . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Question 1.2: Eect of Changed Domicile and Mrs Kumar's Age . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Question 2.1: Personal Consequences of Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Question 2.2: Section 2(3) of the Divorce Act as an Exception . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 Question 2.3: Via Media Approach to Classi
cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5.1 Background: The Classi
cation Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5.2 Lex Fori Classi
cation Table (South African Law) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5.3 Lex Causae Classi
cation Table (English Law) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.5.4 Via Media Conclusion Based on Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Part 2: The Moeng Scenario 12
2.1 Question 3.1: Proprietary Consequences of the Moengs' Marriage . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Question 4.1: Redistribution Claim under Milbourn v Milbourn . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Question 4.2: Would the Answer Dier under Lagesse v Lagesse? . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 Question 5: Via Media Approach to Mr Moeng's Maintenance Claim . . . . . . . 17
2.4.1 Background: The Classi
cation Con
ict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.2 Lex Fori Classi
cation Table (South African Law as Forum) . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.3 Lex Causae Classi
cation Table (Botswana Law as Applicable Law) . . . 18
2.4.4 Via Media Conclusion Based on Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Bibliography 20
Page 3 of 20
,UNISA | LJU4804 Private International Law Assignment 1
Part 1: The Kumar Scenario
Facts: Mr and Mrs Kumar married in Zanzibar in December 1982. At the time, both were In-
dian citizens domiciled in England. They subsequently immigrated to South Africa, where Mr
Kumar became managing director of a telecommunications company in Johannesburg. Three
children were born of the marriage and Mrs Kumar was a homemaker. The marriage broke
down irretrievably in 2010 and Mrs Kumar instituted divorce proceedings in a South African
High Court.
Page 4 of 20
, UNISA | LJU4804 Private International Law Assignment 1
Question 1.1: Material/Inherent Validity of the Kumars' Marriage
Which legal system will be found applicable to the material/inherent validity of
the Kumars' marriage according to the principles of South African private inter-
national law?
South African private international law (PIL) determines the material or inherent validity of
a marriage by reference to the lex domicilii of each party at the time of the marriage.1 This
means the court must apply the law of the domicile of each party separately, and both systems
must recognise the marriage as valid for it to be treated as such.2
At the time of the marriage in December 1982, both Mr and Mrs Kumar were domiciled in
England. The applicable legal system for the material validity of their marriage is therefore
English law. The place of celebration (Zanzibar) is irrelevant to questions of material va-
lidity; formal validity is governed by the lex loci celebrationis (the law of the place of celebra-
tion), but the question here is one of inherent validity.3
Key Distinction
Material validity (also called inherent validity) covers matters such as capacity to
marry, consent, and prohibited degrees of relationship. It is governed by the lex domicilii
of each party at the time of the marriage. Formal validity (such as the form of the
ceremony) is governed by the lex loci celebrationis.
Conclusion: English law applies to the material validity of the Kumars' marriage, as both
parties were domiciled in England at the time of contracting the marriage.
1
J Neels and others Casebook on the Con
ict of Laws (LexisNexis 2020) 112.
2
Frankel's Estate v The Master 1950 (1) SA 220 (A) 228.
3
GF Knoetze Introduction to Private International Law (UNISA 2020) 5-6.
Page 5 of 20
College of Law · School of Law
Private International Law
Assignment 1 · Unique Number: 250655
LJU4804
Module Code:
Private International Law
Module Name:
Assignment 1
Assignment:
250655
Unique Number:
30 March 2026 at 15:00 (CAT)
Due Date:
University of South Africa (UNISA)
Institution:
Semester 1, 2026
Semester:
OSCOLA
Referencing Style:
Submitted in partial ful
lment of the requirements for LJU4804 · Semester 1, 2026
,UNISA | LJU4804 Private International Law Assignment 1
Declaration
I declare that this assignment is my own work. I have not copied from any source, including
the study guide, and I have properly referenced all sources consulted in OSCOLA footnote for-
mat. I am aware that UNISA uses Turnitin to detect plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 20
,UNISA | LJU4804 Private International Law Assignment 1
Contents
Declaration 2
1 Part 1: The Kumar Scenario 4
1.1 Question 1.1: Material/Inherent Validity of the Kumars' Marriage . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Question 1.2: Eect of Changed Domicile and Mrs Kumar's Age . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Question 2.1: Personal Consequences of Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Question 2.2: Section 2(3) of the Divorce Act as an Exception . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 Question 2.3: Via Media Approach to Classi
cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5.1 Background: The Classi
cation Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5.2 Lex Fori Classi
cation Table (South African Law) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5.3 Lex Causae Classi
cation Table (English Law) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.5.4 Via Media Conclusion Based on Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Part 2: The Moeng Scenario 12
2.1 Question 3.1: Proprietary Consequences of the Moengs' Marriage . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Question 4.1: Redistribution Claim under Milbourn v Milbourn . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Question 4.2: Would the Answer Dier under Lagesse v Lagesse? . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 Question 5: Via Media Approach to Mr Moeng's Maintenance Claim . . . . . . . 17
2.4.1 Background: The Classi
cation Con
ict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.2 Lex Fori Classi
cation Table (South African Law as Forum) . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.3 Lex Causae Classi
cation Table (Botswana Law as Applicable Law) . . . 18
2.4.4 Via Media Conclusion Based on Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Bibliography 20
Page 3 of 20
,UNISA | LJU4804 Private International Law Assignment 1
Part 1: The Kumar Scenario
Facts: Mr and Mrs Kumar married in Zanzibar in December 1982. At the time, both were In-
dian citizens domiciled in England. They subsequently immigrated to South Africa, where Mr
Kumar became managing director of a telecommunications company in Johannesburg. Three
children were born of the marriage and Mrs Kumar was a homemaker. The marriage broke
down irretrievably in 2010 and Mrs Kumar instituted divorce proceedings in a South African
High Court.
Page 4 of 20
, UNISA | LJU4804 Private International Law Assignment 1
Question 1.1: Material/Inherent Validity of the Kumars' Marriage
Which legal system will be found applicable to the material/inherent validity of
the Kumars' marriage according to the principles of South African private inter-
national law?
South African private international law (PIL) determines the material or inherent validity of
a marriage by reference to the lex domicilii of each party at the time of the marriage.1 This
means the court must apply the law of the domicile of each party separately, and both systems
must recognise the marriage as valid for it to be treated as such.2
At the time of the marriage in December 1982, both Mr and Mrs Kumar were domiciled in
England. The applicable legal system for the material validity of their marriage is therefore
English law. The place of celebration (Zanzibar) is irrelevant to questions of material va-
lidity; formal validity is governed by the lex loci celebrationis (the law of the place of celebra-
tion), but the question here is one of inherent validity.3
Key Distinction
Material validity (also called inherent validity) covers matters such as capacity to
marry, consent, and prohibited degrees of relationship. It is governed by the lex domicilii
of each party at the time of the marriage. Formal validity (such as the form of the
ceremony) is governed by the lex loci celebrationis.
Conclusion: English law applies to the material validity of the Kumars' marriage, as both
parties were domiciled in England at the time of contracting the marriage.
1
J Neels and others Casebook on the Con
ict of Laws (LexisNexis 2020) 112.
2
Frankel's Estate v The Master 1950 (1) SA 220 (A) 228.
3
GF Knoetze Introduction to Private International Law (UNISA 2020) 5-6.
Page 5 of 20
