,LJU4804 October November PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 18
October 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted
solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1 Instructions: Read the set of facts below and
answer the questions that follow. LJU4804 OCT NOV 2024 3
John and Mary Smith got married in Hawaii in December 1983.
At that time, they were British citizens and Mary was domiciled
in London, while John was working in New York on a two-year
fixed term contract with the possibility of further renewal.
However, just before the marriage, John was offered a very
senior permanent position with a South African retail brand and
he had entered into negotiations with the company at that
stage. They relocated to Johannesburg, South Africa shortly
after getting married and established a domicile there. Two
children were born from the marriage and Mary stayed at home
to look after them full-time. In 2022, Mary filed for divorce in
the South Gauteng High Court. She also applied for a
redistribution of assets. 1.1 Which legal system applies to the
formal validity of John and Mary’s marriage in terms of the
South African rules of private international law? (2) 1.2 How
would the South African court determine where John was
domiciled at the time of entering into the marriage? Note: The
court must determine where he was domiciled in December
1983. (3) 1.3 Mary’s legal counsel would like to argue that the
proprietary consequences of the parties’ marriage are governed
by South African law as the intended matrimonial domicile
, when the parties got married. Advise her legal team on their
prospects of success considering relevant case law. Your answer
must include a properly referenced, full case discussion of
Sadiku v Sadiku 30498/06 (unreported) as well as the relevant
points in this regard from the prescribed article by Neels and
Wethmar-Lemmer 2008 TSAR 587 – 596. (15) 1.4 Assume for
purposes of this question that John was found to be domiciled
in England at the time of entering into the marriage. Would
Mary be successful in obtaining a redistribution order in terms
of s 7(3) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979? Discuss the different
views with reference to case law in this regard. (10) 1.5 Mary
executed a will in Hawaii in which she appointed John as her
sole heir. At the time of execution of the will, she was domiciled
in England and a British citizen. She retained her British
citizenship throughout her life. After her divorce from John was
finalised, Mary executed a second will in France that expressly
revoked her first will and appointed her two children as her
heirs. At the time of its execution, she was domiciled in South
Africa. Mary’s first will was formally valid in terms of Hawaiian
law (only). Mary’s second will was formally invalid in terms of all
its possible testing systems, but formally valid in terms of
Hawaiian law. In terms of the rules of intestate succession of
Hawaii, France and South Africa, her two children would be
LJU4804 OCT NOV 2024 4 her intestate heirs. Mary died from a
heart attack in May 2023. Who would inherit her estate? Note:
You have to apply the relevant provision of the Wills Act 7 of
1953. (5) 1.6 John gave Mary a BMW motor as a gift in February