PVL2601-21

Giyane Matoase
Student: 67709982
Assignment 01

Question 1

Although Mr. Sisulu inherited the house from his father, the house was used as the
matrimonial home and Mrs. Sisulu is entitled to it. The husband cannot eject the wife without
providing her with alternative accommodation and the house is their matrimonial home. Mr.
Sisulu must also consider Lerato’s best interest as a child. Matrimonial Property Act of
1984

Civil marriages are governed by the common law and various Acts which recognize civil
marriage as the only marital relationship fully recognized by South African Law.
In Hall (1971) 1 All ER 762 (CA) it was held:
An order to exclude one spouse or the other from the matrimonial home is a drastic order. It
ought not to be made unless it is proved to be impossible for them to live together in the
same house.
If Mr. Sisulu does not consider Lerato’s best interests as a child who lives with severe
physical and mental disabilities which require constant care, factors would militate in favor of
Mrs. Sisulu irrespective of whether they are married in a community of property or out of
community of property, the general rule is that the spouse who rents or owns the property is
not entitled to eject the other spouse from the matrimonial home, nor may the other spouse
eject the spouse who rents or owns the property.
In other words, for one spouse to evict another, the foremost spouse must provide a just
reason and provide the latter with suitable alternative accommodation.
The provision of alternative accommodation and the use of household assets form part of
the duty of support between spouses and a spouse who is subject to ejectment from the
matrimonial home or who is barred from using the household assets can approach the court
for an interdict to prevent the other spouse from doing so. With that said, under common law,
the husband (Mr. Sisulu) must support his wife, while the wife has to perform household
chores and other services for the husband. All states today require husbands to provide
necessities for their wives and children, and in many states, wives face similar
requirements.
“[the wife] has a right to be in the matrimonial home, and the court is entitled to protect that
right and ensure that pressure is not put on a wife to abandon her by evicting her from the
home.”

Question 2

(a)
In determining whether a donation into a joint estate by a spouse will unreasonably prejudice
the interest of the other spouse in a joint estate, the court considers the following factors.
• The value for the donation.
• The reason for the donation.
• The financial and social standing of the spouses.
• The standards of living of the spouses.

1
(i) Before the commencement of the marriage, Mr. Monama’s debt (study- debt)
was already exceeding his assets. (R 10 000.00)
The commencement value during the dissolution of the marriage is R 0,00
without existing assets.
• Mr. Sisulu’s Net commencement value liabilities exceed assets,
therefore the commencement value is zero.

(ii) Mrs. Monama’s cash savings is declared and the commencement value during the
dissolution of the marriage was R 10 000.00, and the value should be adjusted for
inflation following the CPI (Consumer Price Index) multiplied by two.
• The initial value is therefore expressed twice the value at the
commencement of the marriage as at its dissolution thus R 10 000.00
adjusted to R 20 000.00.

(c) Complete separation of property.

The matrimonial property system which provides that the spouses are married out of
the community of property and out of community of profit and loss with the exclusion
of the accrual system is called complete separation of property.

STUDENT’S STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGING AN UNDERSTANDING OF PLAGIARISM

AND THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF
This is to state that I have read all the documentation about plagiarism that I have received.
I also fully understand what plagiarism is.
I also accept that if I commit plagiarism, I will be severely penalized.

NAME: GIYANE
SURNAME: MATOASE
STUDENT NO.: 67709982
MODULE: PVL2601-21-S1
SIGNATURE: G.G.Matoase DATE: 2021/05/09

i
Heaton J and Kruger JM South African Family Law pp28-29
Studyguide pp6-7
DSP Cronje, The South African Law of Persons and Family Law (3d edition, 1994) at 266-267

Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984

Act 70 of 1979, as amended by section 36 of. Act 88 of 1984

van_niekerk_v_barnard_2004_zafshc_95.pdf

Badenhorst 1964 (2) SA 676 (T)

Buck, 1974 (1) SA 609 (R), cited with approval in Oosthuizen v Oosthuizen 1986 (4) SA 984 (T) at 992I ,and Silverstone,
(1953) 1 All ER 556