Lju4804 May June Portfolio (Answers) Semester 1 2025 - Distinction Guaranteed

Well-structured LJU4804 May June PORTFOLIO (ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED. (DETAILED ANSWERS - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!).. 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) 1.2.1 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) 1.2.2 Provide a brief discussion of the exceptions to the rule in 1.2.1. (6) 1.3.1 How would the South African court determine where Michael was domiciled at the time of entering into the marriage? Note: The court must determine where he was domiciled in December 1983. (2) 1.3.2 Would the position in respect of determining Michael’s domicile be different if the court had to determine where he was domiciled in 1994? (3) 1.4 In the case of EB (born S) v ER (born B) and Others; KG v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2023] ZACC 32, the Constitutional Court found that the time limit (1 November 1984) in respect of the availability of a claim for redistribution in terms of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 is unconstitutional. However, to date, no definitive judgment has been delivered concerning the availability of section 7(3) to effect a redistribution of assets in the case of proprietary consequences of a marriage being governed by a foreign matrimonial domicile. Therefore, the classification of redistribution orders is paramount in determining whether a party to a marriage with a foreign matrimonial domicile may rely on section 7(3) of the Divorce LJU4804 MAY JUNE 2025 4 Act 70 of 1979 to effect a redistribution of assets upon divorce. Discuss this statement with reference to the relevant cases. Guidelines: • No discussion of the 2023 Constitutional Court case is required. • Your answer must include a full case discussion of Esterhuizen v Esterhuizen 1999 (1) SA 492 (C), properly referenced and not taken from the study guide or any other secondary source. Pay heed to the requirements of a case discussion: discuss the facts, identify the legal question and summarise the decision (ratio decidendi) in your own words. Provide footnote references to the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers of the case for every statement made. • Also discuss the other relevant cases briefly. (15)