,LJU4804
EXAM PORTFOLIO SEMESTER 2
DUE DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 Legal system governing the material validity of the marriage (2)
The material validity of the Singhs’ marriage is governed by the law of Hawaii, being the
lex loci celebrationis, or the law of the place where the marriage was solemnised. Under
South African private international law, the validity of a foreign marriage is generally
determined by the law of the place of celebration, provided that recognition is not
excluded by a recognised exception (Pretorius v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O)).
1.2 Marriage concluded to evade English parental-consent requirements (6)
The answer requires consideration of the doctrine of evasion of the law and the public-
policy exception in private international law. Mr Singh and his wife were both domiciled
in England when they married, but they travelled to Hawaii to conclude the marriage.
The wife was seventeen years old, and the question assumes that English law required
parental consent for a person below eighteen to marry.
The general rule is that the validity of a marriage is determined by the lex loci
celebrationis. Consequently, if the marriage satisfied Hawaii’s legal requirements, it
would ordinarily be recognised in South Africa (Pretorius v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O)).
However, a distinction must be drawn between deliberately travelling abroad to avoid a
requirement of one's domestic law and merely concluding a marriage in another
jurisdiction. The doctrine of evasion of the law may become relevant where parties
, deliberately manipulate a connecting factor to circumvent a mandatory legal
requirement. The court would have to consider whether the evasion is legally relevant
under South African private international law and whether recognition would offend
South African public policy.
The fact that the parties deliberately travelled to Hawaii to avoid English parental-
consent requirements would therefore require further consideration. It does not,
without more, establish that the marriage is automatically invalid under South African
law. The applicable conflict-of-laws rule, the nature of the English restriction and the
circumstances surrounding the marriage must be assessed.
Accordingly, the answer may differ if the facts establish a recognised exception to the
ordinary rule. Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to conclude that the marriage is
automatically invalid merely because the parties wished to avoid English law. The
question turns on whether South African private international law permits recognition in
the particular circumstances.
1.3 Formal validity of the marriage (2)
The formal validity of the marriage is governed by the lex loci celebrationis, namely the
law of Hawaii. Formal validity concerns compliance with the formal requirements for
solemnising a marriage, such as the required ceremony, authorised officiant and
prescribed documentation. If the marriage complied with Hawaii’s applicable formal
requirements, it would generally be regarded as formally valid in South Africa (Pretorius
v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O)).
1.4 Law applicable to divorce matters (2)
South African law, as the lex fori, governs the divorce proceedings instituted in the
South African High Court. The lex fori is the law of the forum hearing the matter.
EXAM PORTFOLIO SEMESTER 2
DUE DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 Legal system governing the material validity of the marriage (2)
The material validity of the Singhs’ marriage is governed by the law of Hawaii, being the
lex loci celebrationis, or the law of the place where the marriage was solemnised. Under
South African private international law, the validity of a foreign marriage is generally
determined by the law of the place of celebration, provided that recognition is not
excluded by a recognised exception (Pretorius v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O)).
1.2 Marriage concluded to evade English parental-consent requirements (6)
The answer requires consideration of the doctrine of evasion of the law and the public-
policy exception in private international law. Mr Singh and his wife were both domiciled
in England when they married, but they travelled to Hawaii to conclude the marriage.
The wife was seventeen years old, and the question assumes that English law required
parental consent for a person below eighteen to marry.
The general rule is that the validity of a marriage is determined by the lex loci
celebrationis. Consequently, if the marriage satisfied Hawaii’s legal requirements, it
would ordinarily be recognised in South Africa (Pretorius v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O)).
However, a distinction must be drawn between deliberately travelling abroad to avoid a
requirement of one's domestic law and merely concluding a marriage in another
jurisdiction. The doctrine of evasion of the law may become relevant where parties
, deliberately manipulate a connecting factor to circumvent a mandatory legal
requirement. The court would have to consider whether the evasion is legally relevant
under South African private international law and whether recognition would offend
South African public policy.
The fact that the parties deliberately travelled to Hawaii to avoid English parental-
consent requirements would therefore require further consideration. It does not,
without more, establish that the marriage is automatically invalid under South African
law. The applicable conflict-of-laws rule, the nature of the English restriction and the
circumstances surrounding the marriage must be assessed.
Accordingly, the answer may differ if the facts establish a recognised exception to the
ordinary rule. Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to conclude that the marriage is
automatically invalid merely because the parties wished to avoid English law. The
question turns on whether South African private international law permits recognition in
the particular circumstances.
1.3 Formal validity of the marriage (2)
The formal validity of the marriage is governed by the lex loci celebrationis, namely the
law of Hawaii. Formal validity concerns compliance with the formal requirements for
solemnising a marriage, such as the required ceremony, authorised officiant and
prescribed documentation. If the marriage complied with Hawaii’s applicable formal
requirements, it would generally be regarded as formally valid in South Africa (Pretorius
v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O)).
1.4 Law applicable to divorce matters (2)
South African law, as the lex fori, governs the divorce proceedings instituted in the
South African High Court. The lex fori is the law of the forum hearing the matter.
