“The Inadequately Married:” Extending the Putative Marriage Doctrine to Assist Vulnerable Parties in Invalid Customary Marriages
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25159/2520-9515/15070Keywords:
putative marriage doctrine, customary marriages, California, NamibiaAbstract
This article considers whether the putative marriage doctrine can be developed to assist those who find themselves in invalid customary marriages. The article considers the nature of the putative marriage doctrine, that is, as a remedy utilised where one or both parties believe in good faith that their marriage is valid when, in fact, one or more of the material requirements for marriage has not been met. The article focuses on situations where a customary marriage is considered invalid and where, in particular, women are left without protection and regulation of the proprietary consequences of the marital estate. Currently, the judgment of Zulu v Zulu impedes the doctrine’s application for property division in polygamous customary marriages. Through a comparative analysis of Californian and Namibian family law, this article suggests that the judgment is wrong, or at least short-sighted, in its failure to apply the doctrine in these circumstances. I then propose a framework that develops the putative marriage doctrine in a way that ensures the protection of customary wives in subsequent marriages that are declared invalid.
References
Bakker Pieter.2016. “The Validity of a Customary Marriage under the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 with Reference to Sections 3(1)(b) and 7(6) Part 1.” THRHR 79: 231–247.
Bennett, T.W. Customary Law in South Africa. Claremont: Juta.
Blakesley, C. 1985. “Putative Marriage Doctrine.” Tulane Law Review 60: 1–60.
Bonthuys, E. and Pieterse, M. 2000. “Still Unclear: The Validity of Certain Customary Marriages in Terms of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act.” THRHR 63: 616–625.
Chang, H. 2015. “ California Putative Spouses: The Innocent, the Guilty, and the Law.” Southwestern Law Review 44: 327–364.
Cornell, D. and Friedman, N.2011. “In Defence of the Constitutional Court: Human Rights and South African Common Law.” Malawi Law Journal 5: 1–30.
De, S M. 2013. “When Non-registration Becomes Non-registration: Examining the Law and Practice of Customary Marriage Registration in South Africa.” Acta Juridica 1 239–– 272.
Diehl Joseph. 1949. “Domestic Relations: Rights and Remedies of the Putative Spouse.” California Law Review. 4: 671–680. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3477693
Goldblatt, B. 2003. “Regulating Domestic Partnerships – A Necessary Step in the Development of South African Family Law.” SALJ 120: 610–629.
Jacqueline, H. and Kruger, H. 2015 South African Family Law. Durban: Lexis Nexis.
Herbst M and Du Plessis W.2003. “Customary Law v Common Law Marriages: A Hybrid Approach in South Africa.” Journal of Comparative Law 3: 105–118.
Himonga, C. 2004. “Transforming Customary Law of Marriage in South Africa and the Challenges of its Implementation with Specific Reference to Matrimonial Property.” International Journal of Legal Information 32: 260–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0731126500004121
Himonga, C. and Pope, A. 2013 “Mayelane v Ngwenyama and Minister for Home Affairs: A Reflection on, Wider Implications.” Acta Juridica 1 18-338.
Himonga, C. and Moore, E. 2015 “Reform of Customary Marriage, Divorce and Succession in South Africa: Living Customary Law and Social Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta.
Horn , J. G and van Rensburg, AM. 2002. “Practical Implications of the Recognition of Customary Marriages.” Journal for Juridical Science 27: 56–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/jjs.v27i1.27104
Herbst, M. and Du Plessis, W. 2008. “Customary Law v Common Law Marriages: A Hybrid Approach in South Africa.” Journal of Comparative Law 3: 105.
Johnson, B. 2007. “Putative Partners: Protecting Couples from the Consequences of Technically Invalid Domestic Partnerships.” California Law Review 5: 2147–2183.
Kovacs, R, Ndashe, S and Williams, J. 2013. “Twelve Years Later: How the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act of 1998 is Failing Women in South Africa.” Acta Juridica 273–291.
Kruuse, H. and Sloth-Nielsen, J.2014 “Sailing between Scylla and Charybdis: Mayelane v Ngwenyama.” PELJ 17: 1710– 1732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i4.15
Laughran, H. and Laughran, C. 1977. “Property and Inheritance Rights of Putative Spouses in California: Selected Problems and Suggested Solutions.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1: 45–86.
Lee, RW. 1954. “Putative Marriage.” Butterworths SALR. 36–48.
Mamashela, M. 2004. “New Families, New Property, New Laws: The Practical Effects of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act.” SAJHR 20: 616–641. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19962126.2004.11865165
Manthwa, TA. 2019. “A Re-interpretation of the Families’ Participation in Customary Law of Marriage” THRHR 82: 416–428.
Mwambene, L. 2017. “The Essence Vindicated: Courts and Customary Marriages in South Africa.” African Human Rights Law Journal 17: 35–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2017/v17n1a2
Mwambene, L and Kruuse, H. 2015. “Unfulfilled Promises? The Implementation of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act in South Africa.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 29 :237–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebv009
Nhlapo, T. 2017. “Customary Law in Post- apartheid South Africa: Constitutional Confrontation in Culture, Gender and ‘living law.’” SAJHR 33: 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2017.1303900
Smith, B. 2010. “Rethinking the Application of the Putative Spouse Doctrine in Matrimonial Property Law.” International Journal of Law Policy and the Family 24: 2–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebq010
Cases
Ntame v Mbede 3 NAC 94.
R v Mboko 1910 TPD 445.
Baadjies v Matubela 2002 (3) SA 427 (W).
Mokwena v Laub 1943 WLD 63.
Ismael v Ismael 1983 (1) SA 1006 (A).
Alexkor Ltd v Richtersveld Community 2003 12 BCLR 1301
Mbungela v Mkabi [2019] ZASCA 134
Gumede v President of South Africa 2009 (3) SA 152 (CC).
Mayelane v Ngwenyama 2013 4 SA 415 (CC).
H v C 1929 TPD 992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111612539.bm
Potgiter v Bellingan 1940 EDL 264.
Ex parte Azar 1932 OPD 107.
Ex parte L 1947 (3) SA 50 (C).
Arendse v Roode 1989 1 SA 763 (C)
V (aka L) v de Wet 1953 1 SA 612 (O)
Mograbi v Mograbi 1921 AD 274.
Annabhay v Ramlall 1960 3 SA 802 (D)
Bam v Bhabha 1947 (4) SA 798 (AD).
Ramuhovhi v the President of South Africa 2018 (2) SA 1 (CC)
Sithole v Sithole 2021 (5) SA 34 (CC) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-06-2018-0100
Patton v Cities of Philadelphia & New Orleans I La. Ann. 98, 106 (1846)
Zulu v Zulu 2008 (4) SA 12 (D).
Ex parte Menzies 1993 (3) SA 799 (C).
Coats v Coats 160 Cal. 671, 118 P. 441 (1911).
Schneider v Schneider 183 Cal. 335 (1920).
Blache v Blache 69 Cal. App. 2d 616, 160 P.2d 136 (1945)
Brown v Brown 274 Cal. App. 2d 178, 79 Cal. Rptr. 257 (1969)
Estate of Ricci 201 Cal. App. 2d 146, 19 Cal. Rptr. 739 (1962)
Konrad v Shanika (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2018/00094) [2020] NAHCMD 259 (30 June 2020)
Legislation
The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998
The Insolvency Act 24 of 1936
Income Tax Act 58 of 1962
Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988
Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
