dc.contributor.author |
Maithufi, Ignatius Philip
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2017-02-27T06:46:34Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2017-02-27T06:46:34Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2015 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Determining the validity of a customary marriage or a civil marriage which was
contracted during the subsistence of another marriage (a civil or customary
marriage) has plagued South African courts for a number of years (see Maithufi
“To be or not to be: Does this question still arise?“ 2013 TSAR 723). The general
principle since Nkabula v Linda 1951 1 SA 377 (A) was that no customary
marriage could exist in the face of a civil marriage. The effect was that a civil
marriage dissolved a subsisting customary marriage between a husband and a
woman other than his wife, by customary rites. It also meant that a customary
marriage which was entered into during the subsistence of a civil marriage was
null and void ab initio (Bennet Customary law in Southern Africa (2004) 239–
240). |
en_ZA |
dc.description.department |
Private Law |
en_ZA |
dc.description.librarian |
am2017 |
en_ZA |
dc.description.uri |
http://www.lexisnexis.co.za |
en_ZA |
dc.identifier.citation |
Maithufi, IP 2015, 'Revisiting the "to be or not to be" debate and comments on Netshituka v Netshituka 2011 5 SA 453 (SCA)', Journal of Contemporary Roman Dutch Law / Tydskrif Vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg, vol. 78, pp. 307-317. |
en_ZA |
dc.identifier.issn |
1682-4490 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2263/59166 |
|
dc.language.iso |
en |
en_ZA |
dc.publisher |
LexisNexis |
en_ZA |
dc.rights |
LexisNexis |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Validity |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Customary marriage |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Civil marriage |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Courts |
en_ZA |
dc.title |
Revisiting the "to be or not to be" debate and comments on Netshituka v Netshituka 2011 5 SA 453 (SCA) |
en_ZA |
dc.type |
Article |
en_ZA |