LJU4804
Assignment 2
Unique No: 199151
Semester 2 2025
Due 15 September 2025
, LJU4804
Assignment 2
Semester 2 2025
Unique No: 199151
Due 15 September 2025
QUESTION 1
Maria & John Paulus – Marriage and Private International Law
1.1 Inherent validity of the marriage
In South African private international law, the inherent validity of a marriage is
determined by the law of the husband’s domicile at the time of the marriage (lex
domicilii matrimonii).¹ When the parties married in December 1982, Mr Paulus was
domiciled in Sheffield, England, having established a domicile of choice there in 1980.
Accordingly, English law governs the inherent validity of the Paulus marriage.
1.2 Marriage of a minor and evasion of domicile law
Although the general rule remains that the husband’s domicile governs inherent validity,
South African courts will not recognise marriages concluded abroad for the sole
purpose of evading mandatory domestic rules.² Maria, at seventeen years old, required
parental consent under Namibian law. The couple’s deliberate avoidance of this
requirement by marrying in Botswana renders the marriage potentially void for public
policy reasons in South Africa.³ While English law applies in principle, recognition is
likely to be refused under the fraud-on-the-law doctrine.
Assignment 2
Unique No: 199151
Semester 2 2025
Due 15 September 2025
, LJU4804
Assignment 2
Semester 2 2025
Unique No: 199151
Due 15 September 2025
QUESTION 1
Maria & John Paulus – Marriage and Private International Law
1.1 Inherent validity of the marriage
In South African private international law, the inherent validity of a marriage is
determined by the law of the husband’s domicile at the time of the marriage (lex
domicilii matrimonii).¹ When the parties married in December 1982, Mr Paulus was
domiciled in Sheffield, England, having established a domicile of choice there in 1980.
Accordingly, English law governs the inherent validity of the Paulus marriage.
1.2 Marriage of a minor and evasion of domicile law
Although the general rule remains that the husband’s domicile governs inherent validity,
South African courts will not recognise marriages concluded abroad for the sole
purpose of evading mandatory domestic rules.² Maria, at seventeen years old, required
parental consent under Namibian law. The couple’s deliberate avoidance of this
requirement by marrying in Botswana renders the marriage potentially void for public
policy reasons in South Africa.³ While English law applies in principle, recognition is
likely to be refused under the fraud-on-the-law doctrine.
