,LJU4804 PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE 16 May 2025; 100% correct
solutions and explanations.
MULTIPLE CHOICE,ASSURED EXCELLENCE
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) 1.5 Michael
executed a will in Mauritius in which he appointed Martha as
his sole heir. At the time of execution of the will, he was
domiciled in Zambia and a Zambian citizen. He retained his
Zambian citizenship throughout his life. After his divorce from
Martha was finalised, Michael executed a second will in
Germany that expressly revoked his first will and appointed his
child as his sole heir. At the time of its execution, he was
domiciled in South Africa. Michael’s first will was formally valid
in terms of Mauritian law (only). Michael’s second will was
formally invalid in terms of all its possible testing systems, but
formally valid in terms of Mauritian law. In terms of the rules of
intestate succession of Mauritius, Germany and South Africa,
his child would be his intestate heir. Michael died in a car
accident in May 2024. Who would inherit his estate? Note: You
must apply the relevant provision of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. (5)
1.6 As mentioned in 1.5, Michael tragically died in a motor
vehicle accident while on a business trip in Namibia. At the time
of his death, he was still domiciled in Johannesburg and a
Semester 1 2025 - DUE 16 May 2025; 100% correct
solutions and explanations.
MULTIPLE CHOICE,ASSURED EXCELLENCE
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) 1.5 Michael
executed a will in Mauritius in which he appointed Martha as
his sole heir. At the time of execution of the will, he was
domiciled in Zambia and a Zambian citizen. He retained his
Zambian citizenship throughout his life. After his divorce from
Martha was finalised, Michael executed a second will in
Germany that expressly revoked his first will and appointed his
child as his sole heir. At the time of its execution, he was
domiciled in South Africa. Michael’s first will was formally valid
in terms of Mauritian law (only). Michael’s second will was
formally invalid in terms of all its possible testing systems, but
formally valid in terms of Mauritian law. In terms of the rules of
intestate succession of Mauritius, Germany and South Africa,
his child would be his intestate heir. Michael died in a car
accident in May 2024. Who would inherit his estate? Note: You
must apply the relevant provision of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. (5)
1.6 As mentioned in 1.5, Michael tragically died in a motor
vehicle accident while on a business trip in Namibia. At the time
of his death, he was still domiciled in Johannesburg and a
