You are on page 1of 29



WA Joubert

Aan hom aangebied by geleenthe£d van 51 sewentigste verJaarsdaf{ oft 27 Oktaber 1988

Redakteur SA STRAUSS


Reflections on "domicile" as a connecting factor

,"\,NllRE .E AM T!-lO[l.-IASHAl:SEN"


1 Domicileas a, connecting factor

The law in regardto domicile in South AI1'iea, and Inthe several other legal systems and subsystems in Southern Africa has remained basica:lly unchanged for many decades. In .nan)" respects, it has fallen out ofsttp 'with developments which have taken plaec .in practically all le6rW systems of t he wodd and, ,j n particular. in kindred .• COmmon ,j a w' ~ jurisdlcrion s, As r,e,gards. family relations, the financial and prof ssional equality of worn en in indust I'i alised sod et y h as overtaken the tradhi on 011 view rhat married 'women n'1ay not h ave' al1 ownilLnd free ch o:i cc of domicile. The rights of children teo, are 'today viewed in a different 1igh[ than a eentUl"l' ago. and ag-ain this is only inadequately reflected in our law of domicile. The greater mobility or people both within one legal system and internationally has rendered the tradlrionally "starie" concept or domicile inadequate. Complicated private international "Law conflicts aT-C also the result of a, particular inrerpretetion given 'to ··domicile 'I as a POI]l t cl'rcference Of" "corm ectin g factor' ~ ., .i 11 part ieu lar a'S regard s matrimonial proprietary relations. I

.Pol.lowing th~ English common-law tradition, domicile is our most itnpol'lant connecting factor in South African private international 100.W::l it ill a decisive factor in determining rho jurisdiction ofa South African court," and for the determination. ,In terms or South Afl'ka.n law. of what is known as the "irw:rnatLonaJ competence I of a fDl-eign court as one ol'the prerequisites fer giving force and effect, to the orders of a fon':1gn C:O'Ul:t.'1 If a foreign court regardsitse'U' competent On {he basis of ,<:I, concept of domicile om shared by our 1<1 .... ', the undesirable si tuation will oecu r that a cot! rt decision regarded.<Ui valid and cilfa rceable

~ Dr/tw •. 1,W:SSDQYV GCTmanY).I)rol(·:>,!;~rofI8w: l:cli,v~I·,!;ity UfSOlHh Africa; DirerlOr: l:n~liULte or r~IT.']J::Il, and Cm~lp:Jr'Lti,,'"C Law, UNISA,

l-kc P Q_ R B,oocrg Th« !,fllt' ql P~rmll.1 Mid ~lrr: FfmJi(l,' (.'977) ~6·i7; ,\~ Tll;;lm.'ll.!ihlLu.jiC'I'! "·~f)rm~ pruble-rns -It'J, '~h~ 'l,~pH~iJ."tinl:l of f::i<llUh Arl'i.c.~·n p~LV;tte lrHcrmui('·I~.,] krw", XV[! (I!la-+) cas» 7!H:;I·!: A T:holu,Ltill:llJlirfk '''Ill", 'fvJ:rll' Propertv AC'I 1~B4; S(HI1~ new iltspt'ds lor mi\I'!'tag~;1' fl~ll. L~r ~om.11'lI.lnity amlll1"J'I'l:l,~i:'~ gmrt";xl by !hr~Lg.11 h"tW" ]9@,) 1);., IMl1J. j ~.f at J ss.

'l "hl ,I kd 's K_flMi' Ii T1j~ .Ma!jJ~r 1 gSn (u ~A :!'2U (AJ-

;3 Si:e. ror in:ua!l!," ~ 2 DiNWCI' A,'" 197', csperiully s z (J) ;):1,1([ (3-), 4 C J:I Fell~loyill Pril"tJ/f lm!lrN,(J~i(j"ja' Lai~' ~ I flIt:l) ~l::!,


in the foreign eeuntry concerned. <Iud probably iu a !poeal number of other countries as wcl1, would be: rejeeredinserm is of a di ffc ring interpreration ·of "lnrorna.dO:llal competence" U nder our particu South Afri ~ can la'i;V of domicile,

As can y as ll1id-198G, the South Af'rican Law Coml.':I1isSlOn invited legal ('xj)Crts to eomrnen t on an eventual need fOIe the t{;form of thetradltional co:mnlon~law ccn:l,cep[ of'demieile. TIle Commission's fi:naIWork~ log Paper on Domicile CN 0: 2.0 jProject No 60) wasreleased in Sept):!.!11b!:;i' 19B,8. afrer this paper had beenwrirtcn. In July 1987. the of Foreign and Coulparat.ivt;: Law of the U nivtlrsity of South Arrica specificaJly prQ[Xlli'L;ld eerrain re:rorrfls rega:rclingthe domicile ofrnarriedwornen. mi nors and Qth!;':r dep~odent~r a$ well as of [he tracli don al eriteria used in defllli.n.g a domicile. and. the role ofd.omiciJe in pri'il:1i:l~ intcrnational law gene.raJly.~ From th~ audIo!"·'.\! discussicns with the l,;aw Cm:;llmis~ ~ion, - it became clear that the Corml'lission would propose a ru~\""A<::ti solely 00 include a sratu:tury definition of domki1e, which would pr-o~ vide forr an Independent domicile for married women. and the modernlsation of [he law of domicile in respect of minors and ofh~:r dependents, ildl!P alw. by means of several pl'Opo.~od amendments to ex:i.sting Acts.

It will be theaim .of this pa:per 10 examine the need for the reform of thelaw of domicile, i~l a ccmpararise perspective. H(rIiIi'e~r, dlei.S$u~ aloo transeendsthequestions related to the domk.ile of married women, rni 1:10l:S and otber dependents. The issue of domicile sho'l,dd be discussed and understood 10 ali irs priverc iuremarlenal law aspects ~ as well as irs implications for other fields of.1 il.W •

"Domicileu :is one of the oldest oonl.leCtlng fac(iors known in. law.

I l lirlflls a general and mos~ imporraot funclion; thai is, to di stingu ish betweenelasses of people faHlng under cliff(:' legal regimes, As any connectin g' laetor, dum icile must be an appropl:'i . ate and. acceptable criterion for such d.i scriminarion: cal] s:i ng a different J.J:\,Y' to be applied on the: gma nds that the eircumstanees involved aFeessentJally d iffcr~n,r and unequal, so that it would be impractical and inequitable to subjOCl such ca1!CS to that Jaw whichwouid "n(lr:rn~lIy"., (h..:~ ill, 1.11 [he absence of .a.~pcdfi(' tonrH:::<::dng factor, be applied .. 6

'I'heconnecting factor is crucial bolh in privateinternationallaw as well as in any other. in particular, "Internal" law c-oufllcts.MQreover~ (he choke of law by reference to a "connecting factor! 'is. a very basic technique in law , usedto determine the scope of a:ppHcadotl of certain noemstc certain people .rudy "Legal history has. seen. the passing of such •. 'connecting fano r s' ': in continenral Eurupe. dO.lUicile was at 011.(:

~ • '.l'vh:J!lDt<Llldtim. 00 du.~ Propoo~dR.c:furm of the uw Oi[ IJtIm:k [Ie". I FOOL, 17 July 19117.

6 .'k~~il:l p.'ln:i.nll~tr: .f!\ II .s~ .. lmit~F "'Gmnd~iit;didll;:B~nlel"kun~~'n 7-lJrnlf.ll:t:rnm:iotl.~Ll.;rl Pri\'il.t n:~lu\·OJ1 hC-!.IU::I.Ul,d .inOifgl:1l·· (i~) 1913.,1 /'myit dt'.t .itdtrtUlliuuwl!II P,ioot- und i"~~{f1lj"t4Ti$hh ~ lPnax zn


stage replaced by I:eligir.m, in order to apply th principle cuius I"cg!:(). eius religio as a means to end decades of religious wars, Religion ;una social class as "connecting factors" were replaced by naticnalitv. when jurisdictions became "nations". In Islamic countries such as Egypt or Lebamal. however, I"eH gion con t j,r1U(,'S to be' a most ;i mpcrtant ccrinect i ng factor. with practkallr all "pet!!onall<1w~ ~ being under the jurisdiction of religious authority. Apart from religion, othercommon connecting Iae mrs, in a broad sense, are ~ 5CX (ouly worn e n benefit Irom laws protecting maternity), :lIge (minors are subject to guardianship. etcetera); race (£or' example Cana.ciia,ti, Red Indians may not be appointed as adminierrators of iii deceased estate or a Jellew Indian'}; tribal. or.igin (for~hc application of so-caned customarylaw); or, more generally even, associarion (for example only members of an associarion are entitled to participate in decisions or that aaseciaelen).

Following the esample first set: in art.ideJ(2)(c.) of the French Civil Code, rhe principle of naeionaliry as the primary connecting factor became firml; ... entrenched in continental Europe. in. former colonies or dependencies of eontinenta] European states, in pans of Sourh America, and in some sta res 0 r the '\IV cst.- r ndies. W Ever sl nee . the co ntroversy between lex rinmir::ih:i and liA' p(J;In'(1~' continued to exist and complicate. the application of private inrernarional law ru It's_ In "national it)," countries I questions, of personal and family law are in principle subject to the national law of tile: :pcts{inS involved while in "domicile' t countries, the law of the person' s domicile h applied,

In, the sixties, naticnaliry a~, a coenectiug factor for derermining what the old writers referred te as thelia/uta jn,Ts(')tmlite seemed to outweigh tile principle of domicile. In 1967. Lord Reich observed. in Ind)Wo. l; 1n,4'Pica l1967J :2 All ER 639 at 7'OOD:

So far as I. have any knov ... ledge of r.he' matter the position appearsto be !:hilt most IlUI.<opeari ceunrrics attnch marl:' importanec to :FHl.tjonalh}, 0.1" some~ irnes resi de nee, and In rln: U nited St~ t ell' most if not all the :,.;lal:es, by tht! wife to have a. sep .. rate dQmicil<: for (his purpose, do not regard the court or the hmbaticl'~ domicile asthe only court which. has jurisdireion. But I would fit'ld it sl.lI~'prlsing if their Leselships r~(LI'!y [bought that (hcy h"en' keiCping in line wi~h orher countries. It is just po slble that they were nettLated by the hope, common in Victorian times, that H' ,E.ngland showed til, w~y others would See the hglH and fbI] m~': if so, any such hope has been grievo usly tli:s.a.ppoinn:d.

7 A, G C:mwr/fl t' CaNlwi (Hl'i6) J S c RI. :70_

H S('e in general; G KCf:d, l",rr.m~ft~t1~kjPd~ul;~·'drl (5d~ cd" ,198j1 257;al~o: LJD!:: 'WiIlI~r "Natiol~ali'y or Domicile? TIn: Presene St.i:L'tt' t:l'f Aff;i\lI'~ .. ,' [9<69 R"-II~il ,r/t,f CO!lts vul HI ~59,

q To cli;llihl'.(lubh !1l~.m·r::; P~:'I~aiirring Lei the- ~ta~utQ, n:Ilti(1 and n~f.xIJI'; i:hco concepts (lfJJli:i.nate' fn.)m C tl illame de CUrl :U:I,~t B~,L'uan,d cl· .... :rg.~:n:l!'" (l4th and lilth century, rcj)p~~~ti\'dy and were later adopted by Paul \'0t::1, UI:ri(' :r.-I'ub~'1" and JQIHI.!l.n.~s Vocl,; sec Pors~'I.h ~p cit 26-::16


However, since the mid-seventies, the tendency in fa v our of the nationalit}' principle changed direction. The strict lex patriae rule was rendered more malleable in favour of the mixed domicile-nationality rules as found tradition ally in Sw irzeriand, 1,0 the Scandinavian COli ntries II and some South American,<:L!i well. as in the' South American model Act for private internarienal law, the Cddig() Bu~l(,nrc of 19:28.1~' Many of the new codifications of private internarional law in Europe and South America have adopted a si mi I ar approach of recouei I in g the old con flict between the domicile and lei'" jJlllriat' rules, and the point ofconvergence seems to be the notion of "habitual residence". L1 P''l,y noteworthy are the new pi-ivatc iruernational law Acts in Austria: Greece; Louisiana, USA (not yet in force); Spain; S"",i:tze:l'land (nol yet in force); Federal Republicol Germany; Gemmn Democratic Republic' Poland, Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia, Hungary, People's Republic of China, Turkey, A rgerui na (not yet in i(m:e) and Peru, H As a consequence. the new concep ts of . ~ h abi tual place of rc siden ee' or ~ ~ The place or country ',\I i rhwhic h the parri esare most closely can nccted" have gain ed gl"01,1 nd.

The widespread .r; JhnYls of the connecting factor in private international law relating tothe law of p,e:rsOt1 $ aha reflect rhe modern l"t::Jt:ca ['iOI~, in most modern ' of any' unequal or disadvantageous treat ment of women

1 n A J:: O\,cl'b\'dl, ,., Der M:h'\\'CiZl'.rLschc Resiel'lJ t1 g:«:nt WI.I rr d nCB RUl:ldt:'BgC:N~1 zes lib-I} I' das illl~·r:I'Ia.timHL[L!' Privatrechr" ,~ {'I 983} 1',~ ¥.i' (at :H). \"ith Jurthcr rt':r{lI,'enci:~, :I t Set' 1976 bUfflWdlJllfll Ill\JrJ C{iIJkPf17aI'i~ff .l.o!I~!r Q~Iol[ttt~ 385"

1.2 l?arl'a-AI'IIJl~;~u:I,'\~n Cod!F.IJ,Nd~~ d~t Ik'=lw b!1cnfll{i~nl1l/~rilJad!) {WS'2) ~~,l; 1'-1 Vah.tdilo IJircitl) l~iml(!'fi{)IUU'Pj'iwui(} vul ,1. (5i.h ed, 1930) 1 til.

,13 Si,;C g..:,ncl',al.l.r: '"l;:ml1liDl,:af £nf)!t;ttJpedill ~f CI'rmpaftflit't l.!J:w 1(01.111 chap ,[6, Ill: 1:)11 the ,·!:'('('Il! 'I,-c:r.:m:n~ ill V:1J'!tc'lllar see: K J'll'~dlin!i:. '·n~r og:i:'!!C'.nw;i.rti~'C Stand de~ IPR (c:i n~dllit$~l:ich J,L'~ internadortalen "1/ ~l'fahrcIl51'ech.,~) unter gcrOckskhti~,"lm~ neu liCl' f~dL'u'lsam~r' Li,i.~J.'tinLr'" 2 (1935) Il'Rax 125; .,~ F S.r,nnhz~r ;"Di,w r';:()CifJ,ka'LlQi1~n ~k~ im"'rnallomd~'nPri'~'.~1i·~ht~" 25 (1934) ldt~dw&'i fit lft~/l;$(!t'F!1lridJrm& 276_

H, Sl't' E J,)alLTIe~ "The Austrian C:udHkmion of Cm1Ili(;!~ Lnw" 2B, p9'80) AjCL 197; V ... r Qehjer "Di~l> neue gl'ieehisdl' E.h..:giiu~rl'{'o:;Jl.I - S;Jl'hll.l1rmcn und .IPR"' 19a5 lP.H.n.>: .171;. C S Bruch "Cudil1r<lt:ltm of cocnict~ [.;aw; l'h~ ,Loblisian .l)nll't'· :):] (.lS~El7l"1JCL 2~3~ H' Rau "/.:1.1:1' Reform d~'~ spanisehcn Intemadonalen und Interl~el:liunallun P~,h'~n:I,c.t:b't$'·· (6) 1 !:l36 .I.P.RtnO 254-2.56; I=J R.'l.lI ""Xeu~~ spanisches lruernaliQIIak:5 Fa:l:1liH~lU~C'hl' "CO HHH JPRllJi.' am; Von Q,'crbe(;'k .f!l/1Ti'l (0::1, BwitZ'Cl,'.llInd)

nrul S IvkC",jll:er "Thl' S "i~~ Dr., l" Con fH(.:'1~ Law" 28 (1 980) AjCL :1:3.'); P Sllr-

:e"il' "'The Nl!W' Yul'l(jsla PL"ivue l.ntcrl1i u ional Law Act" 33 (.19B5) "VGL 283:

Kflr=hing ""ntiS. ncul'jugo!ilawist:hc LPR·G("'l;eLz" (3) .I9a31PRtIJo,: I' [VI G~'-K.oI'O~CC '"A:ll~wirkur'igcH des eeuen jut("Clslnwis(;hen [PH:. .1uf cleul·sl.;b-ju!.l!¥,ia,wil!lche 1~:1Il,lmt'fI,bc~i ehungcu' ¥-l (l9li5) .l1abds. .z: 167; F Mm.IJ/L v ~k1i~ .. Ub~r da~ uJ:lgal'j 5~1:If:1 P'R·GeHC'!.z in. l"eChts.vel'glt'ich~ll:cl~r :Bet r~chn,l].'Ig" 23 (19:62) Zcit,~dJ'itt Frjr R.'c·M.s~'ffr.I;I.'lcJW']:~· :2(1); Tung-Pl Chen "P:l'iv,ar~ l:l1tt::I'L1.i'Jti.Ofitil Law of ~h(; P~'Q-' pl"\ Rcpubltr: QfChhlll"" 35 (1007) .-J.lCL 44~; I-I KI-UI;:CT "Da.lHll,rklscb ·I.I)R G;;:s('I:I:· von 198:!" (2) Hl82 fPR,tfx 25:l; J Samtlebcn '"N'L'UC'R hUel'lltHiOIHUClI Privatrecht ill. Peru"' 49 (,!9,85) RalJt'lr Z 4:86.; ",Ar!S!:!otilm: DI,'ILl't Oode of PdvillelnlEr.ll<J'liQ!"litl La \101''' 2-4 ( 1985) No '.:l l'lfimum'DtltI! Lr.gfflll!(llcrio,ls 269;. also IHl[~ the I~l~~nl paper h~· I Slpko\- "The Cmil.Hiclil. Statutes: on Pl'jva(l;lnl~~'na.l!O!lal L..1W (ll:""h~ i£<I!St l'l.tH'Q" pC'al1 COil nt ries", Library of Cryngrc!>H', W ~11>hiI'lgu:1t:l l; ~f:lG,



For instance, the llf;;W articles 14. 15 and 17 of the German EitifiJrrungsgesi!i1! Zlim .Biirgcdidu:11 Gf:£dzbuch, - EGBGB (as amended by the Germ:'!;n , 'Act Providing for 3. New Private Internarienal Law" of 25 July 198By~ stipulate that the bil\! gO'l,c:I.'ning the personal and matrimonial proprietary reiauens of spouse.!!, as well as aU divorce matters. is determined by rete r enee to Inc l.iilW-S of the state or the nationality which was '01" ilii held by beth S'pOtl~C3 or, in the absence of such cerumen nationality! by tit laws Df the state in which both spouses hadtheir last common place or .. habitual residence" or. in rhe absence of su ch common place of habitual residence, the law'S of the Slate "with which beth spouses are most closely connected". However, the motivation for the- German reform WBS not: to abandon. na:liomlliI'Y as a connecting factor in prinelple, but rather to give effect to I he Get.lUall ccnsti tu tional prohibition of unju.I;tified discrimination on the grounds of ~c.'!L I I] two lead i n.g eases, the German Federal Cnn.s!1lutiollal COU'fl declared the oonnict rules in articles 15 and 11' ofthe old I£GBGB (regarding matrimonial pmperl,y and divorce .... cspecti'll' unconstitutional, because they contained a reference to the laws or [h(~I:'I.ati.omllity of the husband only. If. By merely substituting the old 1t."C /Jatritlt by a refcncc 1:0 the io: domicilii the possible sexual discimiorui.on would not have been removed. Hence, the 1"Ie'\:'!I referenceis ahvOl,Ys made to an. dement common to both $,poU5C~, andin order to avoid a iatit1la should a specific connecting factor not be com mon to both spouses. a choke of three possible connecting IacLOni (nationalhy. habitual place of' residence, or closest ,Iin:k) is offcroo.t'

h is againstthese and oth r new directions in the reforms of private inrernatlonal Jaw. which have taken place in many majorlegal 5ySU~'m3 during the past decade> induding various attempts at an international uuilic.ation of prj,vale international: law, '" thai the place and future of • • domicile n' 3,8 a connecuag factor in our law show d be aseertai ned,

15 SI!C"tt">:' -rlil4:' A~I in 3 (I!11l6) U':R,~,'322: I:!.Jayme ··D.,;; neue IPR-Gl;sn~- UrennJll1nJ:I!~;dc1.' Reform" 3 (J 986~ .I PHta: 2&5.

16 ,I fI I~pcct oJ ,111:15 EG 00 B; £fii:sdidd'u1l.p Jr~;if-m~tJfWC.lrithls-B JltrJG.It 63. f81:. ulse in 19S3jllltl-imsiIJlt.I,i! lJZ) ~8e; : in re.spcd oJ art '7(1): BVt'{fCE 68, .334, ,,1$0 in HI85JZ38:l; 1i'C~~d:!lo,rolf;m in., dIH~[i(!n: Son.ll.cnbL"rgC-I" -'IPR-Rl1fol':m und Vo;""jljdri~d, "on An: I.') Ahs I EGBGfl,'· '. (l~~)lPRi1x s,

n ]-'rmIl thl: 'I'aglliwranrre [llll.h~· i~lle or,the oon~!litmi.oI:l,ij[li·~y or pl'iY,u)~ ·illle.rr:uui(m,:d l1L~'" rules, nrt sexual cl i:!Cri III inM:[u1]. ill the choice ~r an appropriate eOnlR"C!i:ng; f"~I'Or. and OIl the ",lnl'ln of Gllrm:lII. ]11'i" .. :t{l .im.,r!1,,(iQllitl ];\\\' l!~. 101' inSotilJJ:Kc'::A Tbema hnusen 23 (I gll4-) .,4]CL 595: GOI'gcnll DiL: 'lIllifl"i"'",fM~id~(' ~'uJ. ktJIUfiiPl£,rd,tiid,<1 GI~ifflOml:hM,gUfj'g lifT Ein'J;dN<'1l tIl!! tMm Gebit1 dO' per~l;l1l;dlm EfN.u:ir/mI'1.1JlIl u,rd iJ~'T tllt'tlifhro (~,~~/r, ,fiPlt. ml#slll'rglt:idu4r .thn:o'ltJlnllg ti(}''fM'i~'i¥''''fl, ifflh~", o:iIjJliftMc/j mIll d~/jhdl(lI R«:'ulll~mi); Uil;loon "The RdlJl',m or Pri"'31~~' I':ntl:m~tio:n:d in rhe F~-dc .. LI Rqmblk orG~l'l1lany" :;14 fI9a5) InicmnurnuR unti,CrlJlIJlmtiliDl.· Loll.' Qp<lnfI9' 2~ I = C BObm~r ,. 'D.<lli deurschc Gc;st:IZ Ztli" ;.; eu li'C"l{etull.K des illl.;;!l'flrui(linaJ~1;l I>ri\"alrcdu~ vnn 198f)!' .1(1 (1986) .R.flill!'l.l oZ' r.l46: It.:.l.ii":h ~ri,Lh furthf;'r reJl.:l1:n~'c~.

rH :s,.,,, below, P:l.l'l:; t note 11:-1

2 The South Afr.i·can. law of domicile at present

The present SOli til African Jaw of dan::tictle , ~\' hieh is shared by the varigUS legal sub-systems in South AFrica, L~ the TVBC~>(J states and most of the mher eeuntriesm Southtwn Africa, can hriefly be summariecd as fullows:

fl) A person' S domicile .i s determined in term s oj' the IItX jori. ~ I

(2 Under South. Alrican l .. w no person may at. any lime be without a domi rile. ~~

(3) Each person m<ty have One and only one domicile at anyone tirne.F'

(4) A pcrsen r etains his domicile of origin until so ell lime as he acquires a new dom iclle of choice, A dom idle of choi ee is acqu i red by an independent personwith c.apacity (0 acquireir.when he l"uUiIs the factum requiremen [ of' lawful residencewithin the: country and 001'1- l;..umiullll!y bas. the necessary animus: the t mention to remai n per-

rnanently ill that counlry .~i

(5) The nnuaol' proving' that a domicile of choke has been acquired rests on. the pari:}'" who asserts it and this onus is discharged by a preponderance of probahil i ties. ~~

(6) Nominirman period ·of residence for a of domicile is required; physical presence for any period, no matter how 15hO'I"I., will be suffieient, provided ir isaeeempenied by lbe necessary tl'Rim= mrmtrruli. ~

(1) The leading case defining the requisi [·c intention lor the llllrmlls ma'flC1l1/i j s the Appellate Divi sion decision ill EiJrPI 0 Eilrmw here it was slated by· P()[gieter AJA in the majol"ityjudg:ment (RuropffJA and Williamson J A dissenting):

The onus of proving a domicile of choke is ... thai the til' ~ius had :JII: the; :rclevant i·j 1111:: a fixed and deliberate hUel1.i .. ion [0 abandon the pre\·iiOU!I donricHc and :.t:uh:: permanently in the country oi.'·C'hoic(". A. t'Ol1- remplntion of any ccrtaln Or fOI"SCC.nble Iiirure I;,"cnt., on the occurrence of\",hid~ residenee In that CO un h-y would cease excludes su hall intenI ion ,if he' cnterta] ns any doubL as [0 whether-he w.iU remai n or nor. the ill tcruion to settle permaneruly i.s Ii kewise excluded,

U) The ~~JJ'sm;f;ming h"lCt"ltHrit'~ ~hQW<'i. GUJP.;u,nku]:y, Q,\"'cQWOI.. KV,\·3')!;uiu. K,m~'WiI:ri,= nd K.\-;:mdcbcl". OI~ · ... :<;11 ;15 South W~st Afr,ica/N,ullibi,._

20 TF'U'Isk!:i. Venda. Bop.hlJlh"'I$"'-nna alld C:illkei.

21 Eibm !'i!;Ii1N 1f16!i (I) M. 1m tA): EX/Plrl(:jOOfH'JINlflI984 ("l;) $A.125 (W): W H Sdun i!:ll • 'C<>nnici fir L.'iw.~·· inW ;\ J ~!;IbC't1. ({'til l..,.! 1>1f.'i:,1 vol 2 (H17 J) ;~34.,

i~ P Q II BobltrgP('I;;I'Or.tB lind III<' I'lml;~r (1917) 77.; B R anehod "'fh~ Cw.u;"r:ll: or.Dnmir:il,~ in South African L w" HiliO .4CI14.]I,I.Ji;Jl'{1 55~ ~ic[4'lJ'llll I! M!JWlI (111M) 3· EDC JJ[), 23 Kuhn Tlj~ SimlA .'tfrirlJll Lf1Q.I I!jDo1llit:i~ ,,_lrainT!1i 1'l:T,fOllS (t972) U: &bmidr "Oen-

ni('~ or L;I W~··· ~p tpl m JJ5 _

2-1r K""I,.", "/1 .rir .~5; elMr r ell ..... · 19:1 J! C Il'D 83~;; Sh,¥~'m l' Sf,upiro 1 '9:[ + WLD 38.

2!l .~"/iRl r Eillm 1965 ell s,,-\ 103 (A): L", ~ W;1' ·f ~,'mlllj1rs and Otbm ·1951. (3) SAI8ti (AI. 26 C~_l' C~d: !9:m GI'I) 31 ,J; fltmnimf)i ~ Cllir11m~/itm O.lflU!' ;'\IDI(1/l.913 NLR. 251.


This dictum has been criticised by most South Ail'iean writr:I'~, ineluding Kahn." .Eil'rm v' .E!:hm, .w,pr:(J~ was a case (.10'!1I:Cr-nilllg a man clcspf'1l"aJte!o settle in South Afrka. brut "",11<1)1 was compclledl LO return to hi5lne\'10!!U diomici]e of choice in Israel ' whea he Jest hi$ emploYIDem here and had! flC) (llthel! means of cant.iug a living, It should ftO[ be; forgotten that rhercwere two strong disSC!flllillg judg· ments ill !.i~i$ case (dIOse 01' wmi.3.mso[l J A and Rump'll JA), and that ,al some tag'c ill [Iile future d~e App(;U;.q,lte Divisioe may ,,,,ell be persuaded to adopt ailes$ stringem tesa . .rOT showing that a person had ~he requisite am:m1dS m'!,lf!~lId!;. tlowever" umil such time, the lest ]1'1 ,!1U{m I.i E'ito~ represents d'l,e law as it st aads.

(8) A penon residcm j'n arorcilgn ecumryfor the purposes of g,overnrnent s@rvi!c.(; m' orrn con~li'a(:~@r employment is free to acquire a, ~h:nnkitle of'ehelee rlrere if s:Ji,1fl'ide1}[t":\,id('l1i:c Qffuis intenrlon me seule ln !hJiit cho,scn domicile perm1linendy can, be pro\·cd.:!.Ii

(9) If a penon Is sen-ing a contract ofl,lmpJ,0'Yffi nt in a foreign country and that oontract is ~]n.nhed 1:1'1 durarien 01' the wort '10 be completed :is :~tSidf l!ir"'fli~ed ll1 '~~me. I:h,en!h~ in!(:reW'lce (0 be OIrawn b that ~1iO change of his ori.ginla:! dmicii'e is intended, The >xisting dmnidle k;; retained unless mere are addi tilonaJ ci rcumst ances from which a ,contl"<'.IIf'Y in'le"lilItkm Can be collccred, "'"

"Domicile is easier to iUusmi.U.l rhan ir is 11.0 dei:'ine."·J<j Central [0 most definitions of d'omi.eile, is he concept 0,[ pennaneeey. D()m.i.cile is defined in Ma,sfm v .MasOtl (:1885) 4· E.ns 33{1 as '", ... the place or country'h is considered ~J" l~l..t' W be a JH~'I'SO~D'8 :re:r:m!IJIlC1J{ horne,"

Again, in ~.fh((ker (" Burne [Hl58:]1 7 HlLe 124 <!It 160. domicile. is defined

as e , • • •. horee, ! he' per:ln~l'IIe'ii r home" .

Thel~ are IlO' ()i1b;i,~ct]cms to the foUow,ing JloinlltS whkh can be extracted from these clcfil1,idons,. n<!Jmely. that t.het-.e muS'1 be <I Iink bciw _0 (he pC~;6on and a place and a:fura1: this; lil"lk,apm'[ frOom i:l~ factual element, is rl.oth.illlg b1!lit a "cJ'(::a~jolil '0:fI8"'" ,jil Rather, the objeerionis raised against 11,0'" tl'le subjecl..ive element ·of intennon w~hi'ch serves as a basls for themosr legaleonsequences, can be reJ:iatJl)' estahllshed, a.\·oiding accidental and m.iilnij}~u]a.nive results: agaitl:ilf the idea of permant:ncy Vi.illk:h lI"ta~ narrowed du:: eoncepr of clom.idle in a, most unpraetical way and, OIS win be seen matel', ,C..I\IIISCf:i prob~em!l Wilh the'(:n1eitts of in tention; and, Il!naJly ,ag:ain s;l, the adequ acy or the eri,tcr:ia (If dom j,iie as such in certain legal rebll.iurls.M:p,s.


':2,£1 &.k.~, I' &k," W45 AD 70;8.; N."i.lltt , •. p.,r~t'ill, ]!.157 (~J SA 280 (C).

29 Ni(;~11> .lVi·roJ '1!;i'1IiI (2) S,A. "9 (\,\!],: Sparo Co~ff;c/ ~/l..,f#.s ji9, Die,-")! & Mom" TIM Canjlid ~l Laios !11th ,~rl' HJ.!.

3(11 J H CI\.{orris Tb« ('llI~l'lj'a ~J L,,'>= {11!JSil!) 1+. ~ II F tl !~)'I.h oj! ,it !ii <1;


3 Themarr.iedwomau's oOlnic;i1c of dependence 3,.'1. Tbe starting point :in common-faw jurisdictions

South Africa remains one of the few countries in the world wh.i,ch still maintains that a wife's domicile is; rhat ofhcr husband and, that as, long as the man-i3brcpel"sisu:, sh is ln apable of her own domicil·,.,'·

As the SeQ (t.ish Law Comm:issi.o~ has stated, the pl'indple that the h1.:l~ba.nd"s demicile is [he unique fOillllll in actions affecting matrimonia' statu 8, .', • . leads In obvious inconvenienee and to frequent hardship. The e:ffcci S of(h~ unity role ha:vc been eririeized as d.iscr:imin.atOIY and contrary to the principle or rhe cqllali.t)' of the sexes" .Jl

Several problems have 'been en unci ared, for example where the husband abandons his wife in South A:frica and emigretes to England, where he acquires a new dom iei le of choice. orwhere the husband's whereabouts remain unknown rol" years, Another problem highlighted by Forsy ~hi~ is that of the errant husband who acqu ires rh e sturu II of oogabumlus who ,. .. . . wandel'S <I,U romati caUy from land to land never sett1in,g permanently i;tnywhl:l~C··.

The elfect of the principle pn:'::scndyin operarion in South Afdca is artificial and obviously unfaix: Lord Denning's criticism. in 'the case of In. re POE r 1965] Ch 5fi8 (AJ at 583 I is apt:

The tests 01' domicile arc JalC mOl.msalislac:loJ'Y. 11'1 order 'to ('hId 01.11 a person" s domicllc' ')'01.1 h'lVe to apply a !rn () r nrcnn.ic rules. They ought 10 been done away\>".ith 'Iollg <lgo but they still survive. particularly -the rule that rh ... wife takes the domicile of ilcr husband and (,he: rule thar a child lakes the dOIl1 icile ofit.'l father _ j~

3.2 B.e£onn in other;iu·n.s

Development in fam life has heel! slower than development in the technolegical Or business world. Or:! e of the main reasens for this Is because family :lire and relariens " ... are widely deteernined by convensirm, religion and 'ethics rather than by rarional cunsideratinns of economic util.ity ... ,,;, Even in the field of domicile, cltange ..... as slow in coming. but once il was recognised that hardships with regard to the wiri·"s and minors' domicile were difficult to redress. it was accepted tha.t " •.. sarisfaclo:rysol,ution!:j eeuld only be achieved by bJ'~ikillg compJet:ely with the rule of ~luity of domicile' .~ ..

32 MO!,!I:I :rcceuclf ('Onfi:n:nil1d in: .In ,... J~W'S ".J(i"l~'~ 19t14 (+) SA 71i (W).

53 &Quish l.a'liI' COiflmli~s:i!m : Pflll'ri~'r Rt'/mrf fffl.Jt~~ilJuiim. i.l C~nsilWlio1 Cr!1/~"~

afftcliPlJ MtJln.1J~'lilli ~Uj~ !l Au~ust '1972. 22. :H Forsr1h (II' cit 9.'L

ss uu .120. IlC)lcI53_

36 Jllknla/j(ffllil E:jj~ldopoJ;a oj CQfl.ljlaTl1lim: Ullt' '1'01 .1 V 'h31) I. a J.j Ibid ... tli III. chal' IIi. 1M.

Several im.pona:nt Iactors centrilnned to this change: the development i 1.1. the legal and soda] stat us of wOn1.ena:nd the ~ ~lrend towards freedom

• . • ·"":tI1

m. ma.rr.lagc .. : ..

Once the first step towards .refornl was taken by N e\;v Zealandin 1963, Canada. followed suit i Q 1969 and lhe United Kingdom in. 19 i3.

A short sUJ:vey of the policy in other countrieswill serve to show the development (hat has (aj,;~n place with regard ro {he dorni61eof In ar:r:iccl ·WOn1t."I:l::

United Kl1j!Jdbm

The tendency towards reform. can be seen clearly from the UK's answm to the on Domicile: complied by the European Commitu;'"Crl' Cooperation; '<The principle whC:l"(;by a married worrum's dom ieile is invOlriahl y that ofthe husband] as has been conJi.rJ:ned on several oct:aslun~ by aurhcrhat ive decisions ,Jl' has proved tni J::Ivo]vc certain drawbacksin practiee, For that reasen, ir 1:> mltpresenl suggeS[ed to, allow the wife in certain cases to have a differenl domicile (ronl [hat of her bush1l:nd. > >~11

The Dorn ici Ie and M atr-iltlcmiaJ Proceeedings . .!I;.ct 19 n brought a hour a radical change: Section .1(1) provides thai the domicile of a married woman' '. . . shat! ,i.nstead of bei,n.g the same <IS her husband's by vi.nuc only ofItl3.rdage, be: aseertainedbyreferenee to, the same factors as: in (he case of any other individu:aJ capable of ha:vil'!l£: an i tl dcpcndcnr domicile' e • U

W here a woman was In arried Immed iately before section . .1 (.[) came into force anel had her husband's domi.d]eof dependence, sheretains Ibex domici.le as a. domicile of choice unless she acquires or revives anOtnr:l domieile, ~.~

This new provision extends 00 Engh:md, Wales. Scotlaad and NOI'lh. em Irel ami.

New Z((J{(md

Section 5( 1) of ACl 17 of 19 i 6 abel i shed awife' 8 dependent domicile and provides (hal "'. " . CViC:ry married person is capable of hav iug .U1 independent domicile. • ." which is attained at tile age of s.i.1i!: teen 0:1 socnevi r ll,·l"yiug. j~

:18 .rMd \.0:1. 1'\,,0 ,~.h~p l: •. 13 ..

:19 For e.~,:;tlnl)lc: L.~ .M~~nlirr II Lr .MU~l~'t I .: 1.89~] .1 AC 33, 65 -66.

40 Eltl'tlpl·an CUlnntiui;.'C on Legul Cou~~<lliUl~. Uqylit, nmdr b,r the G~rnlMll~ I!! Mt"rn' tm SIDlf!s to tM C!!tl:~JiDmmir~· all "Rr:-.J!iJrnIT" ti'li.d Wi '''l)omidk'·, CotLu.dJ of Eurepe •.!'J:' 1975. 7ft

ill .A.~'t."fil·{Hng to ~ctC(J1l J{l) (Jf~h!i' Oomidk~lInd :Matrhn~ni!a1 P.I.~l:tHI1.~sAc't. 19i3.

I he I il·IJC ~I .\!r,i] sleh ~1 P{·~OJl !'i1'S1 beeeenes C!llmbk ofh;)},!'ing :m i ndt:pClldclll dOilliC'ilc .fih:'lil h~ whcu hi: ~;t t;)il]_~ • h~ ;'Igt: of 1 ['i Of nl;l'Ti~l:mdcl:~h;U ;;lg~-

+2 SrT!ioolfn

43 S~"!:I ifl'ti "1 .A~'I 17 or 1976.



AC'CQnding to aecticu 4 (J)(b) of the federal Famll.y Law Act 53 of ]975~ ., . . . the domicile of a .v \,omao who is ~ or has alan.y time been marc ried shall be determinedas if she had neveT' been married'".

If a i,/!;'(Itn anern igrates tcgetherw ith her husband. she au rcmatically aequi res his domlcile ~ although not according to the rule that. she acquires his domicile, but as a matter cf'facr. The consequence of section 4- (3){b) 1s to entitle the womanto seek di 8$01 uticn of her marriage in Australia, irrespective of her husband's dOITtidle."L

U1l {ted StaitS oJA~mrl+Cf1

~ 'The answer 1:0 the question, whether a wife ~ <ifl1l1l r havin.g acquired her h usban d's, dornicUe bycperation of Jaw, may establ ish a domicile ofher own, differs _ . . with i n the United States, fro ms~a:te to state' .. ~~ However, for pu rpcses Gf' divorce jurisd:i.ction ~ it is clear since Williams it N()rlil. Ca:roN:rt_fl'll, tha l either parry's; domicile can be the basis f(ll" interstate divorce recognition, subject only to the formal rearralm [nata domicile for the purpose of foun.dlngjUl'isdictioll must 'be a bona fide demieile." More recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a st at!!; I a:w'wh eh p l:'Ovi,dedthat a woman has no ethe I.' demieile t.b an that of her husband, was ur.u::onstirutlonal. The taw in question provided that if a woman wmnted ttl institute an action in. a parish otlaer than that of the watJ·i.monial dornidle or ber husband's domieile, she had to orft:::l' proof of bel' husband's miseenduct whieh would jusdfy her separate domic:iIc~where<ls her husband did net need toe5tabli5h $l;u::h proof The C ourt eoneladcd that th e Ac( "arbirra:rUy ~ capriciously and u nreascn!itOl v' discri minated .ag,ain st raarried women. ~8

The w i.fe normally acq UI res her husband'~ domicilewh ich persi3ts 1i!S long as they live together. The law insists thatshe retain. his domicile, a 1,::Il:lnciplcwh lch gain~impotta flee in actions i'm' no n-5U pport or for cll v ·on:c on the ground or desertion, However, the. ''>'.ife has been allowed 10 hlIVC; a. domicile od:I,1~:I"~han her husband's" Clark~1! cite s the Case of t he husband who deserts his wife and a.cq uir~r; a new donalcile, Tht:~,,'iIr:: rna y then tela) n a dorn idle at the place where t.hey were: Ii vi ng or she

rna:yac'qu~re bGI- Ol,~'n dcmicile in the event, 0:1" marital offences.

Many American srares allowa 'wiFe to ,acquire h~'f' OWll domicile \,vith her hu sband ~ 3 consem, Clark m~illt.:a:im that this still creates clouh( abou l

<iI4 :P EJ .F:a.1n1'~l' tar,!' (1 9 7 5). 2~.

+,5 AA Ehl·et~1':\", E J :a~'inc ,Pti~aU Iru~rn;rtinfu;rl L-11i' (W73) vt.

46 :U7US 237. 63 S CL 207 (HH2.). .

41 AA~hn:'l1z.w~i~ A T~rnrr;iJr. M ~'1r, C'~fl::fl£(~ ~f Law. p 962} '24],

4~ ClfJig 1i .cit/JIlt,: LA :SUI) CI. 'l:21l ::inS in T~c Pa:mi£l' Leu: RClffJftd vel .'l 'Nr;). !g. 2:!{11

(No\.-I ~::'B " OCt J?79). .

4fl H H '(';1;.1 I~ Tilt Lalli h} !)(mJ.',f~i~ Rda/~'~m tlJ' I'Itt Uljil{ffi SrU#J (1.%8) 150. Abo Irl!~r',lari,m~l !J)ui,)!j,toprdil1 ~rC:mrltmrl1,ri~i;}. [.(fW vel In chap Ifi. Hl8-J 09_


the wuma:n '5 domidle as this particular domicile is HQt based on her own choice. .FIe then sttues the correct principle as being ., . .. (hat the wife i~ auk to .!il.equin:, a separate dorniclle of choice wheeever she lives apart f1lom her' husband, regardless of the drc1J.tustanccs".'IA,


Aecordin g to article I in of lhe C iva Code (If I 0 December 1907 ~ a mar ricdwomanlega.lly acquired her husband's demieile. As an exception • •• . . . if her health, reputation or huainessaremenaeed by cerumen life"', shewas allowed to I.UiVt.: her own domieile;"

HOWCVII;I·,.lhat old matrimonial Jaw (dating back to 1907) was substaruially altered when the Arnendmenl or 5 Or~t()ber 1964 of Ih,e Chl"i.1 Code, irnrodudng a new sta,[ of accruals, came into force on 1 jHnmny 19813. ~~ Ac'Col'(ling to the ucw<l.t'(ide 161 of the Clvil Cooe, "thc: w1Ie acquires the domicile of the husband without losing her unmarriedwoman's domicile" . ArL 162 provides: "Tbe spouses shall determine join tlYlhcir common place of residence," I As regards marriages mnduded before the [lew Act, article 8b of the Act"" Trnn(l;il<uy Provisions atlows the wife of an "ok]" rnal"r'ias'c' to declare that shewishes to tC-::1(_~uil"{~ her original maiden domicile, and to registeraccordingly with the au [!ooritics. of her original place or domicile.

Art.i.cle 180 of the o:t:mended Civil Code makes provision for the jmcisdictien of the courts in the case Df any orders ormeasures aimed al pn)vlding interim relief for the "pI"ese'l"'ilil:!lion of the marrIage·' (for example Qrdl.:'nill(.crdictrng certain trausactions by one of the spouses):

(l) 1~hc cmnpm:l1l t.~JI1l"t for making:any o~d~r.'l fm',lhe prc5c~:iltii;l;n of the m mnagc lullon ~n.1l U be lin: ('00:11 oft he d.otmel] e of cuher one .of rhe ~pouse.~.

50 lbi(f!.'iO·15! _

;) ~ F D~~JrenIOJ:lI."I.rr Ansa), (ed~) Inu!Ul:ut:li~" I~ .Su,j"s (I W;lI) 55. "'the r, ... ;"n';h I<:,,_q ~,~d~ us r(dl[O\,~s: "Un '~piu.uxpe[iI !l.",o:lr uue demeure ~~plld·O!:l. aussl lO[l,g •. eRl~ que ~Illi,;tnt~ _ .1H"lrCpu.t..'1ti/ClI'I 00 la prool~rite de ire!'! flffaj,re~ ~t!.nl gr~~'("m:l:,1J1 :I.TI('~meC~ l);:it la vie en eommuu, '" The or 1~1i:~tlli,l!:t:mliy(: '.("I"Jlj~. i~ :I~ r(}Unw~: ·"gM~. ~U'tll·· tt':l.l1~dkh) c tll:rIously - :1 i'Clm.liw (l:'Inger is mll C'l.lOl1gh.; .)~~.' - .lire(lI~ l~m'(l - ruduxl~h tocre must bi:' d.tngcr .• 11l~1'C dtH::>ru~ I1cll,"w;,u:ilrha'll(l to be ~hma~: ,./«. ~.'( ~ r!'mmN'J.! •. ~ Ii re ill qlnii:J)ol1,i i;.:': lif¢ Wiih the ol.hrr ~fK)li.S!e_ S~ Ihc OOInmmlitt)' fl'Q[1rI ~ Curti-Forrer Qmlmo'li{tlin'!lu Codf Cirril Suis$l' lI912); ~bo :(l TUOF DIU SdUffluri$fue .l;IJi1~w:k ,197!l) Illi.

5<! Fnmeh tmu: .1\ I'rel: de 1'.I\.'I;l;t:mbl.fl! F()cllll':J:l{~ d.e .111 Confcdt"ritLicn ~ M~diliCElli~}t1dtl C!'!d~ Ci.\,jJ. 5u:i:siJi! de .) Ot:mbrc 1984. 4 P€fJillt PMlrorr, L":Ifi ani'l6t' ,.."(~I ur, 20·,1-9; Al'rot d.u Consc:il FM~ml eonetatant It' IC.sU!f:l:t 0(' Ii} lffll;uiun pupulairedc 2~ Septembre )£)85 dll 2E1 Octl)iJl'(' 151&5, ;llj. r,mjlf,c Ffdimle. E-!7 'U'ltlc~ ~'(ll II. II a.~7~ Germ'<Llltt·,'lil ~tlEII 1 !'i19 U I .. I.~n : see also PW~im:1I' •• Ztn~Kddl: d{~ r.lcmm EI:l{::rI,:clm;"· j II 81 (:I. 9&5) &Ju.v,;{.uiTiscllr Juristtm;;.dt'i!PI!J. (.fS}Z) 20.H\! 12 i G StQo;'~.<;I ,. E,ni!\l<: B".I1'''''-kungen zu den . .i\r~ikd[l UH· lind HJ5 des l!o;;tll'~I"hc~h.·~'·in 8~ (1985) !ilL: 260~ .1' Ihuh "Zur RC"!"QJ! des Eh~l'('r,h!;." 1'1.1 (l9B:i) &:JZ 26-1:: H o.,$<.:h",na(l"/C Petitpierre '<[);.; giiu;oITl;dnlkh, Al!~:lland"'!~t;!L!t1g he; Rrrui:lf.-eru;ch:l:li~oolciligtm{l:'·

ill 78 (19iJ2) oUZ ~1 _

(2 \""here tilt" ~PQtIS{,S du fig'! have Ih~ same domicile, andwhere both the spouses have motioned an ordC'1' Ior th~ preservation of the' unien, rhe cuurt 'which W'I~ 'filL M::.ized with the nmHCF sh~\l1 be comperenr.

(J) The compctcm court f01" amending" a.mplif~·ing or l"t~':,;tm.·ing ordera ror ~ he prcscrvat ion of I he :1:l,uIH,iag:1:: lin] (In shal] be t.llt court of the place w!u;:t~ such, orders were made, 01', if neither ,of the spouses is still domiciled at Ih[1~ place, th.t' COUl''! of the new domit'ilc of any on or th> spouses.

Jur.Lsclit:tion in ;jill matters concerning the termination ofthe matrimonial property r gime (ftw example divorce) is regulated along the same line's in article l, 94 of the new Civil Code ~,

Oilier E uropt(Jtl' countries

Most European ,Ieg['~ systems traditio.!.l,aUy provide [hat the wife's domicile will be that ofhel~ husband. There are, however, exception); to this rule, \·iz ~, .... wh~n itis found to be i;mjtl$~. in individual cases' ,:,~ (Austria) .. , .. , if the hoke made by the husband result in serious incouve.n icnces for the fam ily' ".~ (Fra nee) ,. and h • • • in the case or a husband 'who is under a disability' ,.~, (L.ux'l":I1:).bO'u:rg)" In Denmark and ~on.;,.ay, there are 11,0 special rules which govern :s,pecilicaUy the domicile of wives. There is a Jactual presurnption that a wife's domicile ls the same as bel' husband's, unless she bas acquired her own domicile which she- j s freeto do" eveni f she is, not separa t ed from hi 111.;' In Ger.rnany, a married woman ~~ .,' can ft'ee1y acquire and terminate a domicile" .. ;;1

Theimportant disrlnetion to[) be made 'in the above countries, together with alI conrinenral European countries generaUy, is Ihat domicile is only a. subsidiary connecting factor in determining the Jaw applicable in matr:tmaa-!i,al property. divorce, and jurisdiction of the court in family m atte rs. The pa rtics' n ational i Iy, or, in more recen t ti mes, a 00 n necti 11 g Iact [lr com l11.on [0 both P art ies, su ch as t he last c.nrn mon place 0 r habitual residence. an: the pritit'ipal factors."

Consequcnl.Iy. lht: question of the married woman s domicile i~ in practice only relevant when it comes to determining how a matrimonial doruicile Is chosen by lhe SpOIJ~s. ln this regard! the principle gen~rally appLies that where the husband still retains theright to determine

J3 SCi!! nl~1) the p!'IWLlIkl11Sin 'Ih~ n("w m:1:ide,:;; Ul6 a:l1ti 1911,

5~ Eurn,Pl'on C nm 1:11 i t Lc~' on .L~,ga] C DOp"':r.ltion • COt1.ndJ 0:1:' EU:i'O'p~' ar/jh~.~ tn!.ldr: ~l' rifl' (,'1I1'rm~fJ~irJ ,~f Mmdu', Sltllr~ W ,r~l' Qrl.l:~li(1fIlMim· m~ "R'('IU/t.!fWr" m~ 011 • 'IJm,ddrf' •. St I""'~' I)lJUI'i'j 197.5. M.

t.: 5 I'bilJ tlr~ r

r)~) nu.

5i !Md r~!j_ zn. 5fl Ihid I_i,~',

59 ~~" l~hIW!·. LU no I.l~ ! .:1.

J it;

the domicile of the spouse as well, she is not obliged to accept a particular choice made by the husbarud, if such a choicewould force her to live abroad, or if h can generally be considered unreasoeable.?'

Finally, it should be noted tbat, in continental Europe, domicile has acquired iii different meaning, The civil-law (or continental European) concept of domicile is generally determined by reference to the oncept of e 'habitual" or . 'permanent residence"; usedin administrative law. The reason for this is that in continental Europe, and in most states of the USA, 01.. person (w:ln::thermarri.ed or not) is required to register his or her place (or pIat:esJ of residence, which arc recorded ofJidaUy ill Oil persan ~s identity document, the possession of which is compulsory, The choke afresiclence is completely free, and docs not require an inrenti 0 nor perm anency. The regi steredplaee of residence wi 11 be regarded as '[h~,jdo1'llidlc" or a. person, even in private law relations (<IS statutmy dumiciliu.7J'i c,1"tm&di let I::W:CUI{l11di) and for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the courts."

3.3, Possible approaches in S,outh Africa

For South Africa, Kahn bas ;Iluggestcd anapproach similar to that which has developed in Europe: a married woman ~hould be presumed to acq 1,1] re her 1'1. us hand' s domicile on 'n.ulr:ria.g·e and as it chan ges, unless she shows a contrary intendcn, This would enable the spouse's U " , • to earry out normal intentions of shaeing [he same personal law" .'':~

Itshoukl be no led that sect ions 1 (1 ), (2), (:)) and (4) of the Adm ission of Pt:I.'SOflS to the Republic Regula! ion Ad 59 of :1912 already intn;louc('d certain rules, of stammr}' domicile which arc distincr, and derogate from some principles of common - [aw do micile. Although the requirement of "lawful residencevstipulated by ehe Act merely repeats rhe established prineiple of cemrnon law that a domicile cannot he acquired \virhoutlawfu.1 residence (Smith r,' Sm.irb 1.962 (3) SA 930 (Fe)), the introduction of the concept of' 'residenee' I could be seen as an indicator that a moreradical reform of the' law or domicik,shnila .... to the precedents found in contineocal Europe', might. be acceptable, However ;;IS can be garhered from the preliminary investigations and lntendee proposals by the Law Com.mission,,':.Ichcre seems. to be areluctance in suggestiny any radical change which ,\ ... 'ould depart frolll [he gencriilJ direction 01' devclnprnents in 'Ir,lldilionalconunon-laW countries.

(;;'1- '[ II oc~·~·~i irrlity.- ·th}~· ruk {(.'a~-e;l'!lih!:i~he(H~l 0.~:I'm8n·~·. ,~ kmg. t! n=~~~h'U' -li:~(!' ., h~.I:lId,a Lei .. 'I (l~ I ) R$:;g;I!TfMlts G'fJ !'fdiud4 (T~, Tl} (itl Itm,~' wnil .l SJ 5 ~q .1IK! th~ ~Ol~llIll~ntHr}" in lhi~:

I'q::nrd in: L. li:nne, i T Kipp I M Waur L(httJ/.[tl rI~~ B:i'lWlil:hc!JlhdIlS vol 1., prm l (;:14th ~d. 1921:1) W'J ~ es lUi).

~tl EtLl: Jj)l··,111 Conuui'l.h·~ on :Lt·g~LI Cor.:.J1'I.!t:uion, - C~\lIllci] of I!.umpi: Rep,1ir"f maar i'I)' (he Glj'!!'t:lJllll:wA ql.Ht'm,w,',r SttrW liJ au' QJl~sli{Jmf(J.irt:J un "Rtrsjd~!U:c" liltd ill'l ':'/)('miri,/:t •• , Stm~bDlIr'~ 1073, 22-;!5, Nrnc, hUW~'~"eI', (.!la'!' inrespect DrWI;~t Gt'I'mml)1.I.bc infermarion in Ihb pllhhci]tjol1. is eurdared. The l'~l£\·.u1t A~i, it! ViJ\"M'1 CJt::rm'Ln.y is 'tilt' Mdril'lff!JJ_rra-hm~;IJI(i",tl~ (If l,6 Augu!i:! l.~H;I(). nOBL I. 1429

r~2 Hol;)!!'rg op ~it 67. It 5j, 6;) S~:,~ ilb~lH' nere 5,

Nevcl:thdeiiS .. the f'Oll~Qwing suggl!l5.tiiolls would appear Ito offer a realistic al tcrnative ~

( ]) Arnarrxed woma n should be aUowcd ,to have an [n dependent d;o.nidi~c., that is, .01. separate domicile of,choi<t;,e. Tiki.s wou!ld mean that the law ofdomid1e pef,iaifllng to a married woman would be the same as :tbal of ,an 'l,uuna.nriiedwoman.

(2) ln :tht: a~tema'lh'e. a married woman could acquire her husband's demiclle and be allow',cd UJi, acquir,e ,lIinlQ;~her in exceptional circumstances, li~<lt is~.w·iHl her hWjb~!Ilicl'.'llOonsent or in the ,evcnt"u·jta] offences_

(:1) The problems posed by the traditiona! law of domicile could also b~ overcome by adopling: tlllcmu,t:hlil]lo!(',e: nexi.bkand purdy (actual wn,ccpt of halli tual residence. Tili'S w'o'luid he panl.cularll" e freelive iI1, coe e'ilcntof I,be hl(J,sballlld~.s desertion. However. the abandonmenl' of lhe .r.m.imlts test will normaJlly requiregreater objeclj",c OC'l"lainty in regard to du: actual place I(IIr habi,lual residence of' a person, which requirement can be solved by 3. sy,stcm of compubQF)! .. mdliu'rmrul ,'e_giistrJ.tion ofr·e,s.jdcliloewith the corapetent local authori,ty _ Tihe benefits 'Of sueb administrative registl"!>1.ti.on of residence are obvious, not onLy in proced re (serving of dccuments becomes pcssible at rhe regiseered place of residence whether a person is acluall:yI."'C8~ding there 0:1"' not), b~t abo for th~ purposes of the k.eeping .of .·,egi8tli'.~cs of births, etcetera ,,,15 weU a'S reVe"111J e admil:'liisllrlll(]Qn ttnd!:lliI.w and order gcnen~l~y.

4 The minor's a,omkiiJ.e Qlf'depe:l!uiien,oe '1.1. ThclJltOs.itioni n Sou;ln .AJicica ID<l\w

The gene ral rule ill Sou til A frkill.with r,eg:ard tit) the rn incr' s domidle is thai " " .. a legi!.i:rn<lilte minor whOSt; fa;u[i1leris ali'll,e: ,lb!kl'WS his :f::uher's domicile during :minol'ity" ... j. The iUegilinHllte' dhi[ejli:oUm\\'s his mother's domicile, I:1S well as ehe child ever wbom soh: g'lIil1rdianshlp has been gran led to the I::nQther., or whose f<lthcr is dead.

Two con meting prIl[ldp~e!i areprese nr i 111 til e of mi nors: on the one hand, the claims of ' . the <lil!l(uill:1rl j·(l.uguw·ul.r an cl pare ntal aurhurity' and, on the other hand, "'equity and the fH·actic1.lI iri es ·of li:ret.lj~

The ,arising problems can be bdelly enumerated ns foUm" .. s: (l)!.l~c raiTIi.~y [n3'), not always be united, thai: is, the parents, are separated, bun. t1I0~ divorced:

(2) (3)

l he ralthel" nI<li}' be a v'agahu~ldltS~

the fat her may be .gu~h y of certai n offenoes nst rhe ch ild, {Ol: exampl 'ch,iil~d-bcating 'Or parental neglect (in this 'case the parents .may still be,ng [)ogctller);

tH B K,~.Irit1 &mlk Alrirn.r:r ,· l!! /J'Omirirfi ef ~i~tumr PiT.\"tm~ i( I !H'2) B I . ss Ihhf 112.

(4) the farher .'nay' have custody of the child after a divorce, 'but may be negi.~ctii'lg his dl,;lrrie~ towards the child.

(5) the chilcl,althougb still a miner, may have leri the parental horne and Ulay since rhen have anluin:d hiso,wn home; or

(5) (he mother. too, ill the casewhereshe IS the guardian or custodian, nmy be guihy of neglect.

U~itcd Kingdom

Aoc(Jrdiog to ~(;'Ctlon3{l) Qf the Dcmicile and Matnmo!lial Proceedings .f\.<::t 1973. a person is capable of having an independent d0U1.id1(· Wh~!1 heattains the ag~ of si:li:t~rl or marries underlhaJ age .. ~Iow thai age, the domicile of a legitimate or Hgi,tim<l:ced child is that of his father, whiio: ~!'l HI~gil!J1uuechild Jcllews that of hi~ ~T!Qlh(lr"

The dornicile of a child whoseparcnta arc alive, but separated, is tl:mt Qfhb mother provtded he has his .home 'With her and nQt with hhl fmher.!iI:' A child who had his home with his morher and not with his f~uh.t::r andwhceemeeher dies, retains the domicile which ~h~l~t h,(l,ci before her death. ~1

The .EngHsh Law Com.nlls:do:n made the foUowlngprrQ .... sienalrecemmertdarions inits Working 'Paper on Dm:nicile No 88: The domicile of <L persOIl undertheage of $ixte~r:l should be <15 foJlo",.,,:

{a} wh.en: he ha.'i. his heme ",yUh both parents, hi~ domieile should 00 the ~mlH!' a~ and ch:l1l~ wlLh, the domicile or:

(il hi~ parents if tll~ir domidie~ ~1l'C rhe same, or

Oi) his mother jf the domiciles or his pal"enlS:.Iru different:

(b )\vhetc he has his horae wirh Cine parenl onl)" l~ hi dorukUc: wlli be the .'>.'1rn(" as and chil.ngt wIllt the domieilc of lb.; t, paren t; ;;rl:i d

(c) hl, .:lny other case he should 'be' domiciled in ll1~ i:Olmli1~\"':ith whkh, he is for rhe time being rnost closely con,nec[ed.'.11

New Zrola,td

Section 6 of Ad 17 or 1976 provides rhat a cbild\,.:bo~e parems Olrc TIltin.g 109'cthcr haN ,the dcm idl.c oEbi s falher (teet 6(3». Where hili parents are separated, but his horne iswirh his father, hewill have his .Iilther's don] ieile, Once he ceases IQ .b~\!>e .:I" howe \ .... , rh him. oli' npo,n hJ~ father' s death, his domicile becomes that of his mother (sect fi('}»), If the Pal'· ems are separated, the chHd follews his mother's domicile (subjocl [0 sect !i( 4 », .mrJ, if she i~ de a d ,ret ains [be domicile she had 'It her death.

6(i ~kt'.i~~n 'I'll) lind (2), J).Jm:ir.i:li~ <lndM,mrjU1Qui;!i P.m;;tt<Ji!'lg5!\('! 1973. 67 S~:I.ill,n '.13)_

GS 1::1'.1" Dun,ok! • 'IJv:mi",'lic;. C,,~t,U."l)' Or .FJ.c>iibility?'· 135 (1!:.I8)) N.c.,. l.uwj'",rmrl lUiS,

.A.ccordtng~o section 7. every p.ef'San becomes capable of having an i udepeadent domicile upon <l.It<l]n in g the age of sixteen or if he rn arries

u nder til 21J a;ge - I:'. -

4.3 Po.ssible approaches ill Sou'lh Afdcn

The position of }''Ot1th is. one ofdH': rmportantJacrorewhich points to the need. for reform. The .(allowing points are worth nQting:~li

(1 )lr:I.atu ri t yseems to be manilest at an earlier age than before; (2}minors lend to depend less on thdr p~tr(';nl~;,

(3) rhere ha ve bct1in!'I'I~n y ch~lnge s in t rad.idonal. ram il y li fe; (4) theage of majority" has beenlowered in many ceuntries;

(5) although parental pnwcr overminors ,~tiU exlses, educational erganisaticns have a.C:h_u1:Uy taken UVt;T' much of thisaspee; ofthe pa,l'ental role;


(6) the law of domicile in respect 'Of minors should serve the exclusive goal of ptotccling ehildrenand pwviding for adequate control of the exercise of pal'l; pCliWCI'S, in. particular in the prevention of abuses whidl are a ftt:qut;;n~ OC~UI'l"i;nCe in industrial <lind potential]}' violent socidie H _ .

I I' V ~m ... ef th~!;d rdorm in other com mon- Jaw COUH' tries ~",i~h'd to the minor's dor:nicik:, it is _~ub]niHccJth~u refoI'n"! in South Africa is long overdue. and can be easllyathit::'\To in this 1t.lC~1. The Briti.!>h example would be more 1aJ'-n;:01Iching, while the n~fofm enacred i.n 1976 in New Zealand makes fewer inroads. into the tradi~ tiona] coramen-law a pprcach, One of The most practical sohiriens would be also to lower (he age 0 r maj 0 ri.t y. In addition, astatutorybasis Jer roglllou' controlling functions by stale <Llnho:ridcs and thecourrs in <In cases of divorced parentsshould beccmemplared, under the circum:sotance.s prevailing j n Saul h A lrica, where th e cl.ivnl."Ct:ratc ;L1 nd instances of child abuse h~wc b~·enin{;rcasing sbarply,

3 dOlni.c.i1e 0:1 other dependents, In parficnlar, that of

the lllegitima te ,dl i1d.

5.:1 Present position in our :Ia;w

The South AfJ:ican positionwith regard h) Illegitimate children is ~L!il

follows: {! .

Cl1h:ts doaiiclle is that of [his mether." In the evenr of the mother herself being a minoe, [he child's domicile will be that of his grandfa thet (" d ependency upo n depe ndency ~) ~

b~l A~t 11 Qr 1 Sl7~$_

7i) .l1tf~~mlli~jlal /:!;'cnqdl!fir:dia ,/,1' (:ml.r!IIW~11W .l..~l(! vnl .~ V. CI1~pl, .~:I, r:1 13Qb!.:I'f:: op ~'il 65, .

72 Cli1'1r l' SUl(;fl't {r9(J;J~ :H :\,LR 44n, HH.


(2) ifhe; is ultimately legirirnaeed, he acquires a new domicile of or1:gi.n, na rnely, that ofhi~ father-at th cri me of his hi nh;

(3) if his fa.thet should die :n.fte ... he is leg.[tih1ated. the child Jb110W8 his mother's domicll~j. and

(4) in the ~\'~ nro r the death of both h i s parenrs. thee hi Id retains his laS[ domicile until either -

(<I.) heauains ma.jority and .acquires his own domicile of choice: or (0) he acquiresrhe domidh; (jf th" guardian appoin red to him. Alter-

naUv~!y, he retains his last domicile until he attains majority" Hoberg expresees his doubts: tl~ to whether the child acqnircs a domicile of dependence through guardianship. It is sublnitted that if the child. wen~ to have ~~ domicile .of ~:hoic~·. h~ would not have towait until he attained ma.lorlty. Thedeubts c)q)r~-ss~~J by Boberg waul d th I,IS be erased.

Boberg discusses one particular and !':nOSE praerical problem which has not been resolved satisfactorily' in our pn::sent law:~l where a. child's domicile is dependent upon his :tnother's and the mothcr-subsequenrly marries O!. Ulan whoi::; not the child's fa:~hel',ancl she a('quires[h~ demlcilc of her-new husband, do the sameconsequeneesapply to dlt: child? Although the following solutions have been suggested, .BoIJe'rg' finds none of them $aLlsn:U;tOtr;

OJ BQrh Pcthier (C()~~fW1Ui5 L19) and Voet (5 . .1.100) reject theconcep l of "depend~ncy upon depcnden cy", They su g.gest that, instead the sL~pJatller~il\ derniejle, rbe child shculd ret1:!in his Jasrdemlelle (whkh would be; his mother's) untll he is capable of acquiring his OW11.

(ii) Spimsuggc:;(sthnl the childsllQu1d follow hi~ rnorhee's derivative domicil« (,.mly if he liveswlth her and his stepfather, otherwise lie should retain his las:t clomkHe.

(iii) Kahn's suggesrlcn lsrhat the child oruglH~o follow his mother's derivative domicile only .if it wouldalso be her OWl'] ·don:licl1e or choice, hOld she the capacity one . .Otherwise, [he d:\lld should be domieiled at the plan: of the mother'~ hypothetical domidIc. of choice and not the domicile cl'dependence.

Bobcl'gobjoc(stQ K:<lhn'5 propesition because ~

(i) the child may then have a domieilc 'ovhich docs nnr corr-espond to rha 1 0 r any of the partie s involved, in. {')thcr word~. w herene one h as ever been. or InlllY ever go; and

{ii) it would be difficult to prove rhe morher's i.nit"rHlon wi.rnollr her physlcal pm~cn('c.

.•. D(JlIJ..ICU.f.·· .A~ It. CONXF;CTt.XC f,\CTOR


The S lJution olTen-,d. by Boberg is that the child should follow the mother's domidIc at an times and that any reform should apply to her and not 1.0 the child.

5; •. 2 Poss;bh: appJ:loa.;;hcs in. SQluth.

o ne of (he important eri teria adopted in the-past decades in practically aJ i. importa n l legal .systems of the'w:od_d is to remove I asmu ch. as possible. any discrimination againsr illegitimate children. The other principle mu st be thar of a ronsidr;:r,ahl Y' greater foeti S Gil the wei fa re of the child as already submitted in me discussion of (he law of domicile regard i rig min ors generally.

First, Ihe iUebritimatc rni nor child should be capable of acquirlng his/her own domicile of choice as ea:rly as possible, and until that lime have, !.he mot her' s dam idle.

Sc(.uudJy •. il appcarn sound [U favour-the p'):incipl according to which, in the case \,\I"hcr.t~~ the mother marries a man \I\rho is :not the child's father, the child should retain his last domicile, that is. thar of his mother, until he reaches the age when.' he is capah1e of acquil' his own. The only except i.Ofl WQuid be where the child is adopted by the stepfather. This proposition presupposes howcv r:. that. the mother will be capable of .ha'l"ing her own domicile of choice, even in a case ofmar.riage.

The abovepreposition appears 1'0 be the only solution whichwould adequ~nely protccr the mother'j, r:iglns of guardianship and custody 31 all times and ensure (he cffecti.\'c administrstiveand judicial. (;'0:11[1"0] of the mother's obligl'.l.·rlons tmit,{ard l.he illegitimate minor. From a modern point of view, there appears to he no need to protect the father of an illegitimate child in any panicular way, even where rhe child has been legirirnared, unless, ofcourse, the father has subse:quendy married the mother,

6 Gene:ml problems 6.1 lotentiotl.

To acquire a domicile of choiel::.[hejncltlm requirements of hn!ll'fuJ '1'eSI.deuce mid the m;il:tulS requirement, that 'is, theintenrion toremain permanently in the country. must be mel."! Forsytb'~ discusses the ,animu,f ~:I'unu:mii. distinbrt:1 i sh i ng lour types as formnlated by Pollack:

(i) au mtcn rion to rcsi de in the eoun try for a dcfi ni te period; (ii) an. intention to n:side uneil a definill.: purpose is achieved: (ii'i) anintenrlon to reside for an indefinite period; and

(h') an intention. 1'0 reside fDr t:'I;'C~:,

The third catcgnry Is known as the "weak;' tClil: while the: Jau.nh can beregarded as the ··Ktrong': test of intention.

:NI-"or:sylb lOlL 1.1 Ikid Utt.



F orsylh' s view shouldbe foUnwt:'d, which is that, as a result of the social realities in South A:rdca~ thethird category is suffleient to acquitt" a dorn idle of ell o.i.ce . n.

RcjoTm in Of/UfT jurisdiction.s

The general tendency is 10 reduce the subjective test of :[ntcmion by empha.sising ••... the o'bjectiw.:: !biers pointing to a substantial and durable connection between a persclI'l and a given country .. , ';n Thi s appe:a 1;5 10 be a, practical and realisric approach, which has even beenacknewledged by the UK LawCemmissien, favouring, for instance the "weak" test for the dererrnination of a domiciliary intention.7i!

In. Wes( Germany. the prevailing of objective crires-ia j!; achieved by replacing the more traditional test of domicile by tha I: of rhe re!!li 5WI"'Cd habitual residence."

In Den mark, an in wresting objective tcsti 5 adopted: in stead of aski ng what. thepersonsiutcntion .1 a, the question. is asked ,t • • . as to whi!llt may' normally be expected of persons in the same position as theperson in quest inn?; 'I~I

Sw:i~s la.w accords nhjec!l:ivechauctc:r to the requirements of' Intention and residence. Dtlmidl.t: is theplace wher . the person has hi sintereses and the centre of his l ife~ and intemion is conJirmcd by the relevant facts, including [he administrative registration of a pt-rson is place 01' residence ,III

1n Italy, domicile 1$ concerned wirh the economic and social aclivities of a pe('son. Intent, whil,e being the subjecrlveelcmeat, is described as .•.. __ the intent to set up the eenrre of his affairs in a ~veIl location" "iiI~

Botswana easelaw on the aequi sidon of a do:m idle of choice 'by t:l'>.lIatriate contract .. verkers is abo wOrth noting, fi~ The High Court approached. the problem caused by the ani11w_srequir-ement by focuasing on rhe evidence rendered by the plainti ff~ u . . . a rnnsr restrictive

7!i Fm:lr)f! n eltcs I he ro'lIQWing d.ed8io.n 'wheN the- CQ~.rL i$ in I:h~ I.JI"Otif':SS or i Ilg the' """'l:ak" ~f"SI.: &1ItK:1t L" lrt/':JlW' Culfifl1i.nim!$f' 1197~ I J WL.R.l.J.~6 and 1.1976] J A.1I ER 353 (A).

n 'nltttildiDwt' B11ty&.,pnlitl (}_f Comll6#u.fiz'l' .l.a.u· ;"01 1.1 'I. chap t 6.1 I I . 7E. Po .Mt'.Dm~mld in. HI8"~, N~wt.<I!l1 jON'IWI JII/"jj, 86:'1

79' INd,

80 CmllmchOrl-H~llIsl!:n/[·m Gom:u'l1lAf:hi:lip lJallj~h Lalli - ..J(ri"1l.trui '&rm:.! (t~82) l37. II I f' IN~cmonwLn" AIIs~.y .lui'l'MI(Cii'rm lu SWiS;l Ullt' 35"

8'02 G L Cl'F!Qmn TIl,!l!1l ~~1lffi~ ('1985) ::I U;I,

&l AJ G M S;lli,del:li ·'Tht.: &:p..'urial,c Con.lracl Worker und the A("()lli~i.ti(Jn of n 'I)OIl1icilc of Ch£lin: - The nOU:W~1 n.. Pmi1'iml" 1 00 I :1983 ~ ,SA I~J 705,


tCIS( by empbasising the obs,ta,des standing :in the propositus's Wil.}t of cs'tablishiing permanent or indc§inltt' re8~d~liI.ct:and. introdueing the concept of the 'ptuden~: man", who" however is not pruden'l enough to, decci v>e hi rnsel If. ' '101 The COlL] rt .of Appeal. however accepted (he: plaintiff s credible cv]dence <IS; ponmf Lhal he had acquired ;'I,. domielle of choice in B ntswanaand decided tll:u a person who i~ ~" the eou nl:r)' on a 1,C'tnporary resident permlt aCCJ!uire~ .at domicile of chlo,:icc.l!i~ In adler words, the tC's t of rbe {milll us llumultJi as aeeepted by til'll:: Botswana Appeel COl] rt, is , •... alf.lint,'~ntion 10 II'c~id-e pe'nlllJ[Ulcl1Idy 001" fOor an unlimited time in (he CO\mh)IOf choice, which" limwe'Ve:r. n.eed DO~ ~ndude an interuion never to cl1,ange the new country of domicile". ilil Sandl!IT; submits thai. t he rest of t he arli~nl}J:.S li',equ] re]u.~o~ as aeeepted b)tLbe B.o'ls:wana cou~·(.s , •... is in ' UnWm'lJily w~th modem th~nking»" ~l is submitted that rh . compromise reached in Botswanm reflects the dif:lindl Illigr:awllr realit.ics in (he .southeJill:l Afl-ilca~ reg~on~, t:mph3l:sisinglbc need fOi" iii. carefu] and broad re-oons;idcl'ation 0 the plJls:ition of OUI" COJumOn law, going be)'ond a mere ,option f~}lr Pollack's .4wea:I.;:>' H~:SL

The crut:ial considerationin this regardwill centre on thepractical rcquiremema fm" the pm~,r of tilt: domid~iary inlCn't~oD. and rhe realisation rhat rhe pll'l,;,~t:1M lawis open to manipalaeive abuses. FOol" instance, :in the case of a German national 'who [wv'ed and worked rOT some ten yt:an lin S01iJllh A]~['icn. Uil~i!1 he: died imc~l:ale wbile on a business. journey ill \Vc~u Germany, where he had mainrained an officially registered place of residence and a nome the' ,j 11 testalcr:igh'ls of the surviv'ing spouse will depend on ~he Prt-Sijll'Ctum deLerm]oation ,of the deceased's domicile, Germanintestatr suecessienIawwoeld ent.iHelbe sLlrviving spou~c to <I, pcrrion or 3/4 of '~be 1~£(<lIJI.'e., if dll'~· deiCeascdl also Jerl chi.hlln::n behind. Under th~ same circumstances, the South Afrita. Succession AC'l 1.3 of 1934 (as amended) wou~d emitlle Ilhe: spouse '[00 n much smaller share. N aturally, sh cwol!,i.ldart~e that bell" deceased hU;5I;mncl ne'l'lCf' bad an intention to Slay l~eIFI:;J!l,lIlnent]y ,in Sou~h Africa, a proposition whir-hi •. will be' 'n€~u'ly 11m possible to reil"u te even if tberescidlcrnc:e of th deceased in W est German}' w~s fictitiousand maJlfIl <J U I1Jed Jor busi ness I)lt tax. pu rposes onl,:,- i'iII

Iii anodlcl" e~am ple wh ieh is, ag01liln representative or rather rna.ny cases. a marriage wou.dl1,a,\'c been ,col1ciluded in POI'tuga[j beiw n a Wc. t German ,cou'P:~e. T~e ~~Uls,hand could have been bern anclrni:~C'd during (he fir1it len y.~::Jirs 0]' his life in Calli.fbrn:iiJl.!, livingthereeflcr for some lwenty

84 lliid 71,2,

ss Ibiti 7 i [] ;IJtrIJ'>!:'; l' /1(rJ1";" ("2~} 19768 Llll:. ",3,. l:l6 IbM 7117_

Hi Sam!, 'i,'~ flP iii Iql;l SlUJ 711_

fla fQI" i h e (l'c!:aH~ 01] ~ I:~,· :1tl·1~""'~IlI~ P['i\'~H'~' imC~i!:1tim~;~1 I~w rdllll:i.~k!; ,~rnd !>u:h~li!lnfivc G ~ I'm:libl 1~lw. S{.~. Ih~!'li~re~'~Jill.'eli ginilll In nol'l:' L iii p:nlkllhtv HII (:1 LS/1.


yearsin four dilfcrcnt states In the '[}SA, and thereafter in Iourcnuntries: Canada, Australia, Hong Kong: and the Netherlands. ,At the time of the marriage he 'might have been living in Portugal lor five years, immigrating into South Africa immediately after the marriage. Upon divorce in South Africa, [he matrimonie! propel·ty :rights of the wife] depending 011 the domicile o.fthe husband at the tim- of the marriage. could be manipulated at the whim of the husband: he could arguethat he never acquired .any domicile ofchoice, so that the Jaw of his domicile ofol~igin wouldapply, that is to say, separation ofproperty in California .. AJ rernatively, he could Opt fa.' the N cth erl a nels, as his dorn icile of choice still prevailing at the lime uf ma:rriage.oo that the Dutch ~toUll[OT"y regime of community of pl'opet'lr would apply. Finally j he couldalso Iile for divorce in West Gerrnany, where jurisdiction would be determined according to the common. nafir,malit)' of the spouses, causing the 'V Vest German. regime of accrual to be applicable. In each case. an rhar would be required is a convincing assurance or a purdy mental element, that of future intentions experienced at, some stage in <I, marr's past Iifetirne.""

It is thus clear that the difficulties arising Irtnn the requirement of inrenti.o.ll are mainly related to evidence.

Proof of int.cntirm

A!,l rc:gard~p1'f)of of' mtenuon. certain relevant preSutl\ph[m~ shew that in practice" One has always tt ied to revert to objective criteria:

(1) A factual presumption thatthe de t;ujus is domiciled where he .rel>ides (Re Estai« lvlorris 190i TS 657, 665: Klmr v Salmon 1910 TPD 6:371 6:~8). The longer he resides, the stronger the pl:'t:sumpdoll, because it .indicate~ a~imr.LJ ma1~fJ'ldi {Smi'th ~, Smith 1952 (4-) SA 150 (0) i54):"

(2) Other j't]di';I~l which would indicate permanent domicile arc: the p05 session or property (Lc}1 ~ .. biJl"s li.'lt:tJcut(Jl' .1951 (3) SA 1 B6 (.1\)); the establishment of 0;1. family and business interests (Hl~ldd/~:t(m ~$ ExIT'l1.trJr <,i The Maste« (l'Ii'alat) 1919 AD 71), payment of taxes and l he rnaking of a will (l-'i'u/,ddtlS{m·c<11!rc slipra) and rhe "in v esernent of mont')' (Gurw 11 Gwm 1910 TPD 423, 427-8)."1

(3) The presumptinn of ubi uxnr ihi domus ~r" (Rickcl:Is v Rich,.,)s 1929 EDe 221).

(4) Thelegal presumpnon rhar a pt:r~oJj docs nut wantto change his t:xisting: domicile."? The person who. maintainsthar someone has

1m St>l' :1·~Ji..·ru]m: 'to f::IL.!;iIJ ill nnu- t ,

~H') C "!,V H Sehrnldi Bn(rHcg (i 9a~ ~ tR1. l'll lh~";l I gj

92 tu«.

~'::I Ifm/.


ch~;nged domicile must prove it on Oft preponderance of preba-

'bmrie~.~~ .

]n uur la:"lO' Qf e\ridence~ rhere i& ~.ruk c~"duding hearsay, One of the permi I !cclexccpdOfl S to this rule is asta;tl.:fllcnlwhich serves to prove a person's state of mind', es:p~"(;ia1Iy t;"pres:!(5MSli:rlion~"With regardto don.'liciJ,e of choice ,. evidence Inay be given th~t;) pcr~n W~I,s heard to srrYlhat he did or did neti ntet::td to reside perrn:a nendy 'In a OOu ntry (SWliort· CIR'!960 (1) SA 709 (1\.) at 7.l9~i20):'~'

In domicile cases,a statement of in tentien to reside permanentl r 1 n a oountry hold s less weight than evidence of eendnet (Senior lJ CiR, SUfF(1)· ~!~

Schmidt points out thar, although j,t appears thai the crirerlen ofproo:f in demieila cases is ~ll"ku;;l·thanl he normal prepcnderance 0 r pro babllities, the erlrerlon is not ~n+c tel'. btu the preponderance is more di fficuh: than in normal ca~~" One of L1:l~ re~!l5 fll8"Y be h • • • dar dit wa l be~vys meet WOrd\MerkHk .s~l.e''' meet '1\."e~S 'I:Qordat !~gsg(;'\I'glg(l daaraan gekoppe.1 werd" ~y;

fursib1c approtJ.~/ilJS ilJ $o'l1Jh )!Jii~1l

if (he ~ raclHkmal definition of do!nidl.cis tn 'be retai ned ,\.\1.i til regard to the am'rlms m.al1~mdi,. the "weak" test ~houJd be applied: ··.an intention to reside for an indefinite perlod."

The rest ofinten Lion should be more obleeHv~: there should be a rf.'.~ui!"cnum t fbr clear Iaetual connecuons l::u;:('1~~n a person and his pJaa.ollnt~r(;'~t ~.

i\hcmm.ivdy~ the concept of domlcllc oould bereplaced by that of habitual. residence> subject (0 administrative reg.istraHrrrl (:If r~~id~ nee, Wlu;:n u~eol as a eon neeting laeterin privaee international law, Ihe rc:rcr~ cnce should be 00 the last common place of residence of both spouses .• or. In the c<'i;~ of nosuch ecmmo nplace of residence, or more dian one COlllm,gn place of residence, duo place which may objec:~ively be eonsidered 10 be the prlncl pal ('Ommon place of residence ,wilh wbich the ~pou SC8 have or last had their closest ties, Lookingaf the place or places of habitual residence of beth [he SPOUSt:;5 W'QuJdi'lod rulirnl~':II:'lam objeclive element to (he connecri ng facror, thus helping ro 501ve mos·t pI"a.cdc:al preblerns and also to prevent manipulations to the de~ri:mcn t ·of one of 'th~ 8pOU.5t':8.

6.2 The fIC:V:[v<i; Oil the domicile 0'£ origin

& ... eessive i mporranee is given in tl'aditlonru law or domicile to the dOl.uiciic of m:i.g,i n 10 fill the gap between the aband.QnIl:'U~ot of One domicile or

~H I ':wl~~' ~,~ "rf)bt7, 1915 .'\D 2J!) .Abt;i 'llSret.(l<rml:!ct!dcd by • he OK b"w Call1mis:!i(J1f'I

WOI',l\:ing P~pt'r o:n Domuc;i.le No 88.

95 L H 1.:I.O:rril.l!ati ".tld D T Z!:c"If~nnc SA L~w of Ei.'idrnor (:ivc! cd, 1981) ,115" t :16. !,.t6Ifdti:

Pi :khmlrl!I:"~ cil 84.



choice or dependence and the in tended acquisition of another, !oRA5~Va.'l showni 1'1 the second of the two exam ples given above,~} the domicile of origin will become a pure fiction ,i n many cases, the effect of wh.ich is that: when used as a connecting factor, domicile may lead to a purdy accidental and thus inequitable and unr asonable choice of law ..

A n a] rernative to the revival of the domicile or origin is the persistence of the last domicile, which Is tbe rule in fon::e in the USA. FOl"Sylh"~' prefers this alternative rule, because " . _ . (he assurnpticn underlyi ng the rule of survival, .lamely thatall menretained s{I"Ong links with their dOlllid,I,~: of ori,g.i 11. ,i s un reali stic ~ot:l,ay and that gen.el'aJJ.y personswill retain stronger links with the domicile which they have just abandoned j' •

In England, [he [tend i.!:I to mowe aw,ay from the domicile of od.,gin.i'll while in New Zealand, Act 17 or 1976 has already abolished the revival of the domicile of' origin . ..n"~

If the traditional domicile ceneept is abandoned for that of "resideuce"; the issue becomes irrelevant •. as the • 'residence-domicil , , will always be temporary (and no longer "j ndefini tc OJ) and a new place of residence '!>\Ii ll au temaricall y be establ i shed whc Ila;VClF a previous place of residence :i8 aban.doned.

,6 • .1 PiCrmissibility Q.f seveeal domiciles

In OUI: case law, lwo obi/Iff dicl(l have rejected the possibility or the existcnc of more than one domicile.i'" In Eiirm I) Eillm, III~ the AppeUate Division howevt:r left the questicn unanswered.

Reform in oIb" {lJ11wies

Common-law countries maintain that no person may have more than one dorn icile at the same time, III Denmark. N orway and Sweden. however ,i t isposslble for a person to be dom i ciled in several (.'OU nl:r'~e:!! at the same time. tr~ In. Austrle judi(;ial, practice ancllcgishu:.ion (for example section 66 or the General J ad sdict ion Act and section 2 of the EkC'lonll Rolls Act) 'indicate thas.i], is poslIiblcto have two or IllOI:'C domiciles. In p.;aclic:c. however, a person ha.~ one domicile onl.y.Djlfl n law allows a per,son to have domiciles of different kinds simultaneously (public-law domicile and civil domlcile:),W'7 The Civi.1 Code

!)HF.P'I)QIlIt"JI f nl! 5 I vu: 29. Y9 At :ootr W.

:[1)0 Ffinl~"I:b ap 0'1 116. Ull Bullr.>t:k 11 me mfmi,

Hl2' Seetion 1:1. Acl 1 7 ofI97!i,

1011 I:: Kahn 1'11';: &rrffl .(!frktml.o_<f;1 6f iJo.mi,d/", QJ NfI/l1,w! PmlJ'm (19i2) Hl~ 'E, P Done!!y

19:1 5 Wl.D 29. 32 andWtbbtt I' Wcb~, rs J 5 ,i\D 2!19. 242.

Hl4 19I51i tl) aA70~~ (A,).

HI!'! Eu ro,pl'all C(IIl~miu~ Oil, Lega[ COOP\; .lIicm. i!p ,;il 6CHi'I. 105 ,ibM 60.

Wi .fbid,


of the Federal Repubtie orGer~many provides fOl' more rhan one domicile at the Same time,, l'!u,,,'cv1cr, between e , main ,.,. and "subsidiary" domi ci les (pl.:illOC;5 ,of residence]. 1"\1'11

PIMJ'ible tlppmadll:s ~'n SQuth AI,.ica

H l he test of iu~en tioJ1'l is rc ndered iil"lO r'C o~J~clth',e and i fa con necdon between a person and the centre of his! interests is required, or in the event of~'resi.denrej, J"t:p1lilcioS ! domicile;', lit could become acceptable to allow a person to ha VIC more I. han one desn icile ~ wil1Jf: re ~~1 nt person aetuall y has more than one centre of inrerests and legal relat ion sh In the ease of dual natiolUlilis, £0" instancea person .,,,·h~j is botha British and a Prench national. he will be regarded unde French jurisdiction Wl a 'renoo national and ru,mde~·B,a:i!:.lsb j:m'i:sdi:i,eti(Hl as a Britishnational. The same principle roukl apply 1:10 pErsons with rnoee thar O.Ile domicile 00 that Ll1cy would be subject In the laws and eventually the jurisdiction of that country of d:OllllicilJe w.n. whkh ehereleva nt Ilegal rdatiQnsh ip o:r:igi·· paled or has irs nat u r3iJ] scat,

'/ .Na:tionality~ dQOIi.cue~ .resideJIlCie ,and. Sou:the:tllil. African (:on-

f1 i.ct of Iaws

Both the tr'O'Id:ilionaJ connecting factors of domicile a.nd of nationality in their Unmil]ga:ted form:s. have been rejected inmcdern private internat ional, 11lI" I nstcad 'd. habi tu al reside nee ~ 'j S g{;111 C'r al 1 y be i ng: favoun:d, "1111

"Habitual. residence" , ~ndicatJes 3. mcm.aJI situ'fit.ion,whi.le "'domicile" i.nclif'ililte~ a legal Iieticn. M alii y authors, the mosc pnlnili J1i·ent 01" whom is B.aliffol, advocate a oombil'm'rion of rhe • "naliomdity~' principle and that of domicile, as i:f bas ahcady been adopted by most oL ehe recent European .codifi:cati.ons of private imerh a rienal law ,1111 Oc\Vil1teI"~I~ su ggesls dl<~t demlellc or reside nee sh.ou ld mean a pe rsort' s soci aJ domicile.

h is clear [hat In t h<.: case ofthe cenceptefdom k~[e, the rest of In tenlion 1$ an essential element Ito avoid abuses .all1d the pos!i1ibi.1 i ty of ~! foru n1 shopping' " UnQ test (If mtentien would apply, a pt':'rson would be free lactuaUy to keep establ i 5h iog new Udomid]es ,. and I hie reby change the forum to sui t h is needs. Howevo[~'b', lhe dl~f[kuJ lies ~ n disproving a dOJ:n idI:iaL'Y j n te n do n are censiderahle and ~~ has been di fficu]t to prevent easy manjplli~ation in certaininstano 'S.

1011 "Haupl-"'and '"1'4 Jjn~u~oillll~itll:""~ i( er. 109 Sc;,: l'el:e.nllll!.)l'S .'IIiKJ\'t' in IlO'Ie!! .13· 1[0 r7.

I 1 0 Po~ ~':oI;u:nJilk·. FOfflyth. op tif at !H:WBu;n; there mil)' 1m ~rn IPrusll:l!l~ di"'e~nn: between rhe ·pnll:Joi.'l.l!i:tu~· d(ll'!llid!~~ lI~i~e;d b<y .t~!t-i!I m~"'.~. ~~~dI ~ti~ permanent 11101l~C', " • , . 'I he h\\\: ~1'I(jl:lJld :Iilisim;:n [0 :J pc.1'\'ro11 a ,t~g.'1 ~u7moL' w.hkh 1:\[iDIIl{iodli:~· wilt~~ jq i~ fm;,tllalltmrnc:", ;[ :11 &.-c ub'I~'l!', l'I.(lt·1!' :L

.l.l~ &pru tal n~llq' S.) 4;] 1


HU:I.mGJNG~H· 'IN!)El. 'VIR \~'AJQI..'Fi'lW.T

This function of the test of intention in the domicile eenceptls fulfilled in the countries foIlowing the concept of "habitual residence" by the requirement of adrninistratlve and compulsory registration of the re siden ce of a pe rson.

"vVithout the ten of intention in the domicile eounzries, or the requirement of administrative registration in the "'habitual res ide nee , • countries, Iitde more than the factual and lawful presence ef'a person. remains to consthute a "dnmlcile" or "residcnee". If is thus ob .. -ious that the eertainry of ,<I. person's forum requires eith: r the r stention 01' <I more 01' less traditional concept of domicile, with some :necessary adjustments in respecr of family relations (such a divorce jurisdiction) or, alternatively, t he adoption 0 r a regi me of corn puleory regist.ra!ion· of l'esi dence I which registe"ed place ofresidence could then replace the traditional {:IOn fleet ing factor of dam idle.

It i submitted tha' South African law should move away from. the t radi r ienal srrict common-law approae h ~Jld should e mbrace at least the reforms of the eomrnon-law as: they have been implemented in most" other cemm 0 1l·1 a w j>dict'ior:J s or. altern at ivel 'f. the modern Continental approach,

However. the particular situation ofthe jntcrdependcnt and highly diversifiedlegal systems of Southern Africa must be remembered Ill. any auempt at interfering with out private international cernmon-Iaw rules. AU told, South Africa, its six self-governing territories, South Wesr Africa/Namibia, [he TV.BC-states, I Ij Botswana. Lesotho and Swasiland already constitute fifteen legal systemlS,and in each of them one f rids in i ernal su b-syseems made up of" native;' $~afutory or custom 2Ll"Y' law, Increasing economic interdependencies and the predominance of South African. investments indicate t.hat yet another group of countries should be consideredin this context: Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe of the common-law family, and the Cemores, the Seychelles. Mauritius, Angola and Mozambique of til ~ civil Jaw I socialist family.

The ques don of the appro pri ill te COn nee t.i n go fac tor for '~tJ e choice-oflaw, made: at present by refer .nce to the traditional common law CO[lccpt of domicile, is necessarily one of privare iaternational law. Although The so-called privateiurernaticnal law always consists of llati(mtU law in the sense that ~ ccuntry's ptiv·.ate "imernatioual" law is made H.p of (h~L country's own lll,abJtol'), or common-law choices; there is nevertheless an u I1d.~ nia ble, truly intcrnanienal elem en t. at play. The old jusdficat ton given for the existence of ptivat iatemanonal law rules is the doctrine of cQmt~(ls.LLL "Comity" is defined in the COlldse O;iford DI:dicmwy as

llil SC:l' nute :W, a'bmr4;' ,

II '. As !TLU~! :lUCidly ~peHed tJU'L by lllric HtlbL'T ill hi~ ,Dr CIi1Jj'lr'dN' ,l.~~~m. translmion br I) J Lkwclfri'11 Davit·s in III <193-7) BYIUL {H~ ~~e ills!! Ft.m.y'h. 0/1 t;1 S 1 '11t'1'


, 'courtesy o:f na~iol1Js. frlcndly ~'e)cogn ra~· asp'"ac'LicabJe of each other~ slaws rund u.s:ag:es ~j. The G@lI1cept i $. trul 'Ii old.~ i n (he sen se that it failsto ~'etlect the H\lai:llty ,of a neOilr~y tOIt;a~1 absence of' ·c01J.rtesy" in mooern ~ntem!iltlonal! rdadons:. Sad], ]n point, US h,.w has been (he rore~ runnerin ZlboJishilllg comitas in private ibltcnJatiolna] law t he •• better ]aw ,iBJ]?PI"(llilch" .roli,e:arning that the COU nswi]rns.i:rnp1y determi ne, in each;1 C<IISC, w:~et:hel' the Oilh:elwi se.appl lca:b]e suhstanrive rulesof a ~oJl1eign ]c,ga] ~yS:lem ~]'e: "tbe bener law']' IlO be preferred, or nor. 11~,

A ITiiorenloclern refl,ectionon. the lnu~ reasons for rhe ~u.tvi'l1al of peivate in (ern ~~iloJ[lal I <liW sh(lIl(l,M oo,nsiclei' rnl~s u:sefulnf:S's, and take thi s as a guideline for evemu~l lfIefolf'll1J$. Tiheusefu~ purpose ofpf'ivat"cintl:::rnadonallaw can olidy be to fad~l~~~e and errClC'~~'!lel'Y protect legal rda.Hom lnvlQlviJf1igmore~hanone legal system, In rheareas of rradeand CQmmCfCC, fa'~c1,g:n. ~:nvc~(me'nts~md ~raJ.n:s]c:r~,rleehnology~]egal cer(ai.Jfll Y <lind respect foil' c)i~her Hliun l:des~ lawsare crucial. They may be cOlClsitlcl'r.:d ~,!)) he: paJ]'~ of the neccs",ry '~'~n ffAStl'!.lIIcturc" [or ,:such under .. takings,. of at least vhe same i.mpolr~<trlce <IS 1~1'<lil'I'I:>port aadecramuaication faciHties, SOlul] AKdc(l! ma.y Serve as: an exampk: I~he o:fiten unprcdktable: Opcrnf k:malldcxtf!:lOwdiinary facwl8!i d~mc[l]ties in acllmruly clisc(Ymring the appli.c<Jibl,e ]1a:W ~n respc)cl~ of~he sdJ~go\'\e~']li.lrIg ten'.itories and the TVlEIC-statc5 h~\'c serUQu:dy ha,rnp~!'ed development and decemrellseelon policies .. Undel' such dFCUmS;[anccs~ ~~~aw" becomes a high and costly risk factor, ac llng as: a detel"l'el)!~ ~:O p(He:nti~~ cc:onolmic dc:ve:lopn'lClfIt.

T.he quesrien of dom.kUe ~s .0005:1 relevant .inpr.iv<lw inrern arion al klW w he];]. cleat i IFig 'W i lh personal re]at~ons. The ob\rJo!Jil sl>ragJl1lJa:lic aspect U) consid~r ilfllh]~ cO][l~~d w~in be the .!:ad~ ita lllJ'lg of 1i11obUi,!y and inu:::ractioJfl of peopl:e 'I.UOSS na[10nall:m1undmri:es, and even. 101 a brge degree, aeress the conri neats, ,once m[we~JargeJy i~.OI the benefitr.)f ;lI. ~Q!nulry' S developrntntand l?mg'Il:SiS. Olil~ .1IrWl!d1ll!:OII'll~;5~ under SomhAfrkal1 [[aw .i s, for i nstancc, the sj,~um ienwhere many tholi:lsamdsof wi ves, wbo8.eJTIarr:i~ agts are gove·m.ed by fO.I.-elglTl ].a;\\<'., .n'DJOl.)l $[ in be d.eem ed to be eoruractuaUy lmcapacita:~ed by ~~'U:larit alpo.we·r 'Of the hu sba:nd or tim South AftiC""l1

! I j The "bNter ~aw rn]I~" b.~~k~d~y ur~!:,';1n,ltlt.ldl \\!i:[~~ A. LclIL::qr Am~7im'l C~~jl;.H LI}~1 t:li nJ t'd,19'ff)u1l:pm'l mClil.ll:'Ir J]:~ HI'~'·.~ ~15,_ Sm' iibE,l' ,hj;' intl:n.:~1 i[lg~·I)"lrov(·'Ii'll)' 'I;l.y Il AurtJ,ul '.A_ COI~i il~~!1i~,a II LE!"q'~1rL[l!iJ'~:~ ,'~~ C:Oi~'~cmp01'il'Y AifI:i'~fk."'lD Choice ofL:!w ~)r.~l'ldl'l]!c~" (27)1 .~ ~I]~! AjeL ::i!J9'; A. 'r'~'Oil'l~!1 ~:·]If;lln "C()mm~fu" (2i) 1979 .vel.. 6~}5, F' K .lIl!Jt~l'Iw~r "(i{l3U~l"n~" ('27) ~ Wit) AJCL (1:09: A:r Ull!"'II1f1fdld "Renvoi I1ltlflng ~he L~w PMI~~.~m"!!: .. \n A'lin.~]lil:m:l'~ ViK)l!!o' ood~c IWl.·OIPt',.[!IYI Vj.ew of Anu:Ti· l·~H. CtlnUHl:!. ilr La.w··· !lQ {,WIJ:l2} 41(:1.. ~m ~·scq; l!: V~~UI "l'h~ h~~p"~e!inEllf(~pe ~J.f t I:i~Am!i:ti;t·a~l C111ri niltt~ l'tC\'tlJI!,I!~t:lal ,. ::m (~~m2.) AjeL l ~ F K jCl!i.nwr ..• r'QIt'tllll SII.QPpin,!,:" 46 (W~:2;) R~&d.~ x lOB:, 7' t5'; .. ~S~nH ~eb('n ,. :rOO'lIJm l:1i:o.:ing' • .. 6 (.1982) l?ilhd; Z 7'~ 6; jr'lK Jl!lmll~cri '·Conilliei !):U· l~.\lls: 1'\ Cri I iq!.lJ~(Jr 11'I1~:'i1 AnnIYliis'· 3'2. ~ ~ 9M) AjGL.11 f~~t"IJ'

lfxfori,w'hich, j'n the meantime, has been abolished, but only fC]1: persons married under South African law. L~~; Legal certainty on the contr-actual of a person, however .• is of absolutely crucial impnrtance in everyday life,

Apart from. thtl many recent national codifications of private internarional Jaw IH the last decades have also Been numerous effort.s at an ,int~mationaJ harmonisation and unification of priv.ate international Jaw rules: lhe' 'most noteworthy being: the many mode! Acts and eouvenlions proclucc;d by U;-.rrDROTT, the Intcrnarional Institute fol' the Unification of Private Law~im the 36 intet'nat:io]1"al cu]:}venthm5 produced by a total of t4r-:hl!;;'1ll! Ccnlerenees on Private International Law held since 1902; j I:! the varlo us ,ini riativesan cl conventions of the European Com.~ rnunincs (EC):!:.I" a total, of 12+ internatlonal ronventiens produced until 1986 by the C0U11CH of E\ln:rpc:~~' the i.nitiotth cs of the Panarnerican Conferences •. i~~ of the Nomic Council; 1:1' and a grca'! number of eonventions Of draft conventions (in excess of500) concluded lndcpenden tly 0 r the abo v ~ organi sation s, I ~~, The prol i rCTo1I lion of in Lema tiona! agreemcnes as a means to improve the legal infrastructures available in inlcrnationallega:l intercourse has further led to the I,e-W discipline (if ~'·conf1i c ts of con vention s" . I~',

The harmonisation and ultimate unification of )'a:W8 in Europe: in the 19th ceDtury, in particular in the lidd of cormnercial laws, esrabllshed the basis upon. which lndustriallsaticn, the free circulation of gtlod£ll.ncl

'1'16 Set' Illy T'd~'rcnL'C'~ in nntc I •. ~Lbo~'!o'. 'in ~ni '~~Ia'r 1,0 X.\ n (191:1,4) GIL'!! 7'8-9'1.

On ~'I.!t !LJil~)th~I' a~.p'l!tL .~oI,:e ]:-1 C Rooclt "Artikel n~) vnn elk: E(.!S:kdc1infi::,;w'I.!i, : 1'~I.I.r~ V rQue fcidik sonder R e nwdie" Hma. Dr R~biJ.f 5iH)6,

III fl('1." ;Lo.:we, I~otc 14,

I 18 'rh~ t:!NIDROIT CQfl"'C'Il~iO\I,l rm Agency in thl.! InLcmatioi' Side of GMd~ !.)f

I. '7 Fd>rnarv WSS In,~ been dgn,l,;d bv SoUl'h Ai'riC.1 <tild\va:s en.'JlC!!:.'l:1 b v At'c 4- of 1986. Soc Keiold ~p <lit (in Mt~ B. iLLb:W,c) ;,t 130· i ~S: al~('I: '·'tld der Hail~;:r A!;IkDffltJ:I!'rl mn L :1.0. HI$(i" 7 P!!(7) lPh.'ax G5·Gti. South Africa on!!-' s·jgue(1 Ihl!' COfl.venLiol'l i'm, th!.: Con.llk! ofL.1.wS rei" I'i I1g to thcForrn QrTt~S!aii'lC'niary Previsions of5 Oc!(joh~r 19~H.

S~l': EJ.Q;)'rn~ I C Kohl~r ··,;;'::UITI. Stlil1d des iruern .. tiO[la!~E] Prh".m!- 'lim;l ~lcdmll"t:n~i" rechrs dCI' :tiul'Op.aI,scbcn OC'ml!ili~clll.ft'· 5 (l9fl.5) IPRuil:, 65: H Smi'l mid P I:i. NCl'w~ tnt L!i1.~(~ ~f E-urof;emr C~'I1mil.l1Jff'f, .. I (.'ONlm"lJi(lfJ' n,Il 1'tri! .EEC 7frr4'l0' vnl .! {l9M} '11:1p I. 23 and chap 3, 4,Gi (with :'1, Ij~l;ing of hS.I;IJlOn;'K.11:i.uIJ, il1iti!1ti\'c~). see ttl.w: 'LipSlr::it'J ( d) Ha'ffl!I!!I~tiul.r ~f .PrilJt1ti hlll~nJ(lli(!rl!J.l La!" ~l' illfF.£C (1·78) ..

Se~ Ct:ll,t1Wi! or Ei1n;;p~ ('"lIar~ ShQ~I,nng ::':fgn(IiW'f~' .:md .Rf1.lifi~:o.ti~IIJ' !J,f C't1,utl~'it ii,t lirmjJc

Cfltlilmli(ms 11114 Agmmmu (Luxc-mhol1l'g,. 1986). .

Si:l:: P H Neuhaus "·D.i,~ Kouvenrioncn der OAS 1ib!:ll~ Inr,e·millic~mll1:'s Pl'ivat'l"l:ehl in der Si~hl cim,'~ Eu:l'0p(\c'p,:;" 23 (I 932) ~rR'V2!l:;; ,lso t.he rtrcl'~'J,leeS in l'It;)lt 12.

nl)o\,' "

R David "Th~ hL!tlcl'l!ltion.,L[ UniJil."ati&tI of.P,rlv!lie Lnw'" .It/,IWI€,J;Cl1J.(1{ EIlr'lJr./i.J,f;c-tiitJ 0/ CmlIJj;:n(lri~~ /;(1W vol I L dl'~p 5 (197~2.) 1 flO·l B8.

l:H s.L:~~. i,/Utali!:: Vor! ~:khwl'nd ")_·iuh:in;tli.ona;iC' Abkummcn []1l~1 El1lpfchllll1~Wj auf dem GcbiC-I d~'}i I P R" j 913 I ZjFW '2Ed.

125 Se-e K fi.I'S'I:hLlllI!" ~p cit" 5 (j ~a 5, 1'P!~ax 125 ~Lt ! 2J:i: Ii" M.ajm'os .• Konltik!~ oow:hr:IR'l\ SI.B.fI,t~,,·el'(I·ii!>o-en moll" de'lll Ger",jm fk's Pri,,·,ureC']m.'· 4li ! 1.98:21 RIlfJl'h' .z 84



pCts0115; alild devdopme,1lJi l geilit':r.aU y caukl progress, !~I. Harmen i satian of paivaee .inu;::rna.t]on.d. law has. 'been I'llllOS[ :succcss~ul. it is snbmitred, on a. regIona] b@J:>iIS, a.~ c'l/udcn~ccl by l neEEC C\OU nfr~e!ll andi n L~ti 11 Am eriea. Tln:1.! ~nt erdep endeucy of all ~.ega.~ s.ys~em s an d sub-systems in SOl1Hhcrn Afl"ica ~h{lli,JI,d be ~he si~arl~~ng polnt. i.nany initiatives directed at t he badly needed modelin il~8J~ ~OI1il Of.Ol!.iJ" Ul:ldi ti)(ln.a] eoennon-law ru les of pr! v fi.f,C 1" te rnOli~j(llna~ [;!IW, •• BO!]"!lid.ic;'· cOlIJ!k~ be ·an appropl",ia(e startIng poi;nt.

Howeve~' ,the p~·t:se]'l[ t;QU rse uf even lS ,seems [0 ind i earea n~ndency towards rh~ Opp~~ilC direction, f~:r rlfQW pIol!c~isjng reglonalco-opercallon In (he fidd of h:lLW reForm. {.!:olr ~li)IsltW'l<ce by ~fyln,gjO est.abU!!b a working com mi (tee rOle ] he h~:rm'(m~8(jJt]On ·of Southern Africa.n private In ternarionalIaw), t he Sou til Afidc!lIFli <l!mhod [irs and i'l[l pa,t]cubn' the L~w Commission <;U'f:' eX!erdsbilg i1li mOl:Ir':ldate]1] respt!Jt:Jt of South Afrk<l. alone. L~nle&5 this p~)]k}' ]S re .. tiew~d il1l due eour:sc" th,tJIiiE8,ulting ··'dehum'lonisat inn " <of laws in Sour hern Ar~'i(;a will soon ]'cacl') <limarm ing proportions,

II .i ~i 111 [ hiscnntext that the "'~'ol'k of Pm~e8oor W inem Joubert. to whom thi s contribudon is cled~C'ated~. shou]d nOr~ bei:O:rgouen.f'c,~h~[p~ the time h.':1;8 come f'01' his ~.lf"IJS:[]tule" fhe]nsliitute or FOlldgllfl and CQmp.wadvc L'iW !U the U n.iveT:;;ity of South A f:rk~..lO bn)1adcn its dir't'cti em, of.u:tiv][ies, and to becomethe forenlfE1ner ofa Sorllll~eli"!l'l Ajrl~c<lrli Ins~ih;li~eofF()ireign,. Com paraeive and Inrern f1t]onal La:w"

126 LJ Clnjll~~l')n~i:[!.~~~o "Duo; v\,rd~,",d~:'F K.(l~~il1ikai~O~]~·liIcl"I ill:! ~:9. und 20. Jaihrlmnd~.rt [i:n!~:f ~I~!I:!I G~~s;i:~ht~[il~Uji~k ~ (~~;~ R ~t:h ~~~·o;"l·g!i::~tlIlJl..ll'I!:l" '79 (~m))O) ZJR' V 59;. R. R@(li-:rc lmrrJdN&rl/)!1 Mj j)roi~: C'~tl.l'ft!'!.ri ~ ~ ~ni9), ~H: K Zi\'i!'eig~n and 1-1 KOlo:i. til n lilfwr!rrt.liU'll io CQmjMmtl~'~: LrlU' ~"ol 11 P 9177) ,r'!.