LJU4804 Assignment 1 (DETAILED ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED

LJU4804 Assignment 1 (DETAILED ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED Answers, guidelines, workings and references. ASSIGNMENT 1 FOR FIRST SEMESTER STUDENTS UNIQUE NUMBER: 250655 DUE DATE: 30 March 2026 at 15:00 (CAT) Instructions for answering the assignment: • Include your name, student number and the module code on the cover page of your assignment. Assignments without student numbers on the cover page will be penalised. • All sources consulted, should be referenced using footnote references. Refer to the document explaining the School of Law Prescribed Referencing Style (OSCOLA) uploaded under Additional Resources. Unreferenced content will not be credited with marks. • Use quotations very sparingly. In this assignment, a maximum of 5% of the text may be quoted. • Do not copy from any source, including the study guide. Any information provided that is not in your own words and properly referenced, will be flagged by Turnitin. Be reminded that Turnitin also compares all student assignment submissions with each other and instances of academic dishonesty or students copying from each other, will also be identified. • Refer to all relevant prescribed readings, where applicable. • Only submit one pdf file and ensure that it can be opened for marking, is not corrupted and not pass-word protected. No handwritten and scanned files may be submitted. Would Mr Moeng’s claim for a redistribution of assets based on s 7(3) of the South African Divorce Act 70 of 1979 be successful if the court follows the reasoning in Milbourn v Milbourn 1987 (3) SA 62 (W)? Motivate your answer. • The substantive contents of the assignment (excluding the cover page and bibliography) should not exceed 3 typed pages – Arial 12 font size, 1.5 spacing with standard margins. • It is compulsory to accept the Turnitin EULA (End User License Agreement) when submitting your assignment. If the Turnitin EULA is not accepted and no originality report is generated for your assignment, it will not be marked. Would your answer to 4.1 above be different if the court followed the decision in Lagesse v Lagesse 1992 (1) SA 173 (D)? Provide a reason for your answer. Read the set of facts and then answer the questions that follow: Mr and Mrs Kumar got married while on holiday in Zanzibar in December 1982. At the time of entering into the marriage, both were Indian citizens domiciled in England. Shortly after their marriage, they immigrated to South Africa where Mr Kumar took up the position of managing director for a telecommunication company in Johannesburg. Three children were born out of the marriage and Mrs Kumar stayed at home to look after them. The marriage relationship broke down irretrievably in 2010 and Mrs Kumar instituted divorce proceedings against Mr Kumar in a South African High Court in the same year. Which legal system will be found applicable to the material/inherent validity of the Kumars’ marriage according to the principles of South African private international law Assume for purposes of this question that Mr Kumar was already domiciled in South Africa when they got married. Assume further that Mrs Kumar was only 17 years old at the time of entering into the marriage and that the parties married in Zanzibar due to the fact that the legal age for marriage in South Africa is 18. Would your answer to question 1 still be the same Which legal system governs personal consequences of marriage in terms of the rules of South African private international law Discuss. Mrs Kumar intends instituting a claim for redistribution of assets upon divorce. Explain why section 2(3) of the South African Divorce Act 70 of 1979 constitutes an exception to the rule mentioned in question 2.1 above Assume that redistribution of assets is classified as a divorce matter under English law but as a proprietary consequence of marriage under South African law. Which legal system will the court apply to redistribution of assets if the via media approach to classification is used? Provide the lex fori and lex causae classification tables and then base your answer on the relevant policy considerations. Mr and Mrs Moeng got married in Zanzibar (Tanzania) in December 1982. At that time, they were both citizens of Botswana and domiciled in Botswana as well. The default matrimonial property law system in Botswana is out of community of property (as per the Married Persons Property Act of 1970) and they did not enter into an antenuptial contract. The parties relocated to Pretoria (South Africa) in 1984 and established a domicile there. The relocation occurred because Mrs Moeng took up an offer as senior executive of a large retail group incorporated in South Africa. Two children were born from the marriage and Mr Moeng looked after them full-time. In 2018, Mr Moeng instituted divorce proceedings against Mrs Moeng in the Gauteng North division of the High Court. He claimed redistribution of assets in terms of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 and also instituted a maintenance claim. Which legal system is applicable to the proprietary consequences of the Moengs’ marriage in terms of the rules of South African private international law Assume that maintenance is regarded as inextricably linked to proprietary consequences of marriage under the law of Botswana and therefore classified as a proprietary consequence of marriage in Botswana. However, under South African law, the law governing maintenance is set out in s 2(3) of the Divorce Act as discussed under question 2.2 above. If the court follows the via media approach to classification, will it apply the law of Botswana or South African law to Mr Moeng’s claim for maintenance? Instructions: - Provide the lex fori and lex causae classification tables (therefore two separate tables) to apply the via media approach. - Draw a conclusion based on policy considerations. - Make use of the headings and structure of the classification tables as per the study unit, therefore: Rule Category SA PIL Rule (connecting factor) Which system applicable? Rule applicable? South Africa Botswana ASSIGNMENT 1 FOR FIRST SEMESTER STUDENTS UNIQUE NUMBER: 250655 DUE DATE: 30 March 2026 at 15:00 (CAT) Instructions for answering the assignment: • Include your name, student number and the module code on the cover page of your assignment. Assignments without student numbers on the cover page will be penalised. • All sources consulted, should be referenced using footnote references. Refer to the document explaining the School of Law Prescribed Referencing Style (OSCOLA) uploaded under Additional Resources. Unreferenced content will not be credited with marks. • Use quotations very sparingly. In this assignment, a maximum of 5% of the text may be quoted. • Do not copy from any source, including the study guide. Any information provided that is not in your own words and properly referenced, will be flagged by Turnitin. Be reminded that Turnitin also compares all student assignment submissions with each other and instances of academic dishonesty or students copying from each other, will also be identified. • Refer to all relevant prescribed readings, where applicable. • Only submit one pdf file and ensure that it can be opened for marking, is not corrupted and not pass-word protected. No handwritten and scanned files may be submitted. Would Mr Moeng’s claim for a redistribution of assets based on s 7(3) of the South African Divorce Act 70 of 1979 be successful if the court follows the reasoning in Milbourn v Milbourn 1987 (3) SA 62 (W)? Motivate your answer. • The substantive contents of the assignment (excluding the cover page and bibliography) should not exceed 3 typed pages – Arial 12 font size, 1.5 spacing with standard margins. • It is compulsory to accept the Turnitin EULA (End User License Agreement) when submitting your assignment. If the Turnitin EULA is not accepted and no originality report is generated for your assignment, it will not be marked. Would your answer to 4.1 above be different if the court followed the decision in Lagesse v Lagesse 1992 (1) SA 173 (D)? Provide a reason for your answer. Read the set of facts and then answer the questions that follow: Mr and Mrs Kumar got married while on holiday in Zanzibar in December 1982. At the time of entering into the marriage, both were Indian citizens domiciled in England. Shortly after their marriage, they immigrated to South Africa where Mr Kumar took up the position of managing director for a telecommunication company in Johannesburg. Three children were born out of the marriage and Mrs Kumar stayed at home to look after them. The marriage relationship broke down irretrievably in 2010 and Mrs Kumar instituted divorce proceedings against Mr Kumar in a South African High Court in the same year. Which legal system will be found applicable to the material/inherent validity of the Kumars’ marriage according to the principles of South African private international law Assume for purposes of this question that Mr Kumar was already domiciled in South Africa when they got married. Assume further that Mrs Kumar was only 17 years old at the time of entering into the marriage and that the parties married in Zanzibar due to the fact that the legal age for marriage in South Africa is 18. Would your answer to question 1 still be the same Which legal system governs personal consequences of marriage in terms of the rules of South African private international law Discuss. Mrs Kumar intends instituting a claim for redistribution of assets upon divorce. Explain why section 2(3) of the South African Divorce Act 70 of 1979 constitutes an exception to the rule mentioned in question 2.1 above Assume that redistribution of assets is classified as a divorce matter under English law but as a proprietary consequence of marriage under South African law. Which legal system will the court apply to redistribution of assets if the via media approach to classification is used? Provide the lex fori and lex causae classification tables and then base your answer on the relevant policy considerations. Mr and Mrs Moeng got married in Zanzibar (Tanzania) in December 1982. At that time, they were both citizens of Botswana and domiciled in Botswana as well. The default matrimonial property law system in Botswana is out of community of property (as per the Married Persons Property Act of 1970) and they did not enter into an antenuptial contract. The parties relocated to Pretoria (South Africa) in 1984 and established a domicile there. The relocation occurred because Mrs Moeng took up an offer as senior executive of a large retail group incorporated in South Africa. Two children were born from the marriage and Mr Moeng looked after them full-time. In 2018, Mr Moeng instituted divorce proceedings against Mrs Moeng in the Gauteng North division of the High Court. He claimed redistribution of assets in terms of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 and also instituted a maintenance claim. Which legal system is applicable to the proprietary consequences of the Moengs’ marriage in terms of the rules of South African private international law Assume that maintenance is regarded as inextricably linked to proprietary consequences of marriage under the law of Botswana and therefore classified as a proprietary consequence of marriage in Botswana. However, under South African law, the law governing maintenance is set out in s 2(3) of the Divorce Act as discussed under question 2.2 above. If the court follows the via media approach to classification, will it apply the law of Botswana or South African law to Mr Moeng’s claim for maintenance? Instructions: - Provide the lex fori and lex causae classification tables (therefore two separate tables) to apply the via media approach. - Draw a conclusion based on policy considerations. - Make use of the headings and structure of the classification tables as per the study unit, therefore: Rule Category SA PIL Rule (connecting factor) Which system applicable? Rule applicable? South Africa Botswana ASSIGNMENT 1 FOR FIRST SEMESTER STUDENTS UNIQUE NUMBER: 250655 DUE DATE: 30 March 2026 at 15:00 (CAT) Instructions for answering the assignment: • Include your name, student number and the module code on the cover page of your assignment. Assignments without student numbers on the cover page will be penalised. • All sources consulted, should be referenced using footnote references. Refer to the document explaining the School of Law Prescribed Referencing Style (OSCOLA) uploaded under Additional Resources. Unreferenced content will not be credited with marks. • Use quotations very sparingly. In this assignment, a maximum of 5% of the text may be quoted. • Do not copy from any source, including the study guide. Any information provided that is not in your own words and properly referenced, will be flagged by Turnitin. Be reminded that Turnitin also compares all student assignment submissions with each other and instances of academic dishonesty or students copying from each other, will also be identified. • Refer to all relevant prescribed readings, where applicable. • Only submit one pdf file and ensure that it can be opened for marking, is not corrupted and not pass-word protected. No handwritten and scanned files may be submitted. Would Mr Moeng’s claim for a redistribution of assets based on s 7(3) of the South African Divorce Act 70 of 1979 be successful if the court follows the reasoning in Milbourn v Milbourn 1987 (3) SA 62 (W)? Motivate your answer. • The substantive contents of the assignment (excluding the cover page and bibliography) should not exceed 3 typed pages – Arial 12 font size, 1.5 spacing with standard margins. • It is compulsory to accept the Turnitin EULA (End User License Agreement) when submitting your assignment. If the Turnitin EULA is not accepted and no originality report is generated for your assignment, it will not be marked. Would your answer to 4.1 above be different if the court followed the decision in Lagesse v Lagesse 1992 (1) SA 173 (D)? Provide a reason for your answer.