Revisiting the "to be or not to be" debate and comments on Netshituka v Netshituka 2011 5 SA 453 (SCA)
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 |