STUDENT NUMBER-
STUDENT NAME-
ACADEMIC HONESTY DECLARATION
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of
UNISA’s policies in this regard.
2. I declare that this assignment is my own original work. Where I have
used someone else’s work, I have indicated this by using the prescribed
style of referencing. Every contribution to and quotation in this
assignment from the work or works of other people has been referenced
according to this style.
3. I have not allowed and will not allow anyone to copy my work with the
intention of passing it off as his or her own work.
4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submitted it as my own.
NAME: SIGNATURE:
STUDENT NUMBER:
DATE:
This study source was downloaded by 100000829878664 from CourseHero.com on 05-12-2023 04:39:12 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/149516574/ADVANCED-INDIGENOUS-LAW-EXAMpdf/
, QUESTION 1
Official customary law refers to law carried out in courts in accordance to
statutes such as the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act of 1998. On
the other hand, living customary law refers to the social experience of
those living according to customary law. Official customary law is found
in texts, legislation and court precedent whereas living customary law
came to be defined with reference to the constantly evolving practices
that indicate the current system of norms by which that community has
chosen to live.
Mabuka v Mbatha 2003 (7) BCLR 43(C)
Mabuza demonstrates the transition from a society that defined
customary marriage with reference to the elaborate ukumekeza tradition
that was best suited to the previous rural setup and that it is no longer
necessary in the current urban conditions. The issue before the court was
the requirements for a valid Siswati Customary marriage. The brief facts
were that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a relationship in
1989. In or about November 1989 the defendant’s family approached the
plaintiff’s family to start negotiations for the lobolo payments, and the
penalty payment related to the fact that the plaintiff had fallen pregnant
out of wedlock. An agreement was reached with regard to the payment of
lobolo which the defendant paid in full. The plaintiff and defendant lived
together as husband and wife since about 1992 when the plaintiff moved
into the house with the defendant. In 2000 and after the parties had
relocated to the Western Cape, the relationship between them terminated
and the plaintiff instituted a divorce action against the defendant.
The defendant opposed the divorce action on the ground that no marriage
https://www.coursehero.com/file/149516574/ADVANCED-INDIGENOUS-LAW-EXAMpdf/
, existed between the parties because under Isiswazi law, marriage required
the payment of
This study source was downloaded by 100000829878664 from CourseHero.com on 05-12-2023 04:39:12 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/149516574/ADVANCED-INDIGENOUS-LAW-EXAMpdf/