FACULTY OF LAW / FAKULTEITREGSGELEERDHEID

DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE LAW / DEPARTEMENT PRIVAATREG

PRIVATE LAW 171 / PRIVAATREG 171

Law of Persons / Personereg

1ST SEMESTER TEST / 1STE SEMESTERTOETS

9 APRIL 2018

TIME: 65 MINUTES
TYD: 65 MINUTE
READING TIME: 5 MINUTES
LEESTYD: 5 MINUTE

MARKS: 35 PUNTE: 35

LECTURER: DR D HORSTEN DOSENT: DR D HORSTEN

IMPORTANT : LET WEL :

1. NO CELL PHONES OR ELECTRONIC 1. GEEN SELFONE OF ELEKTRONIESE

EQUIPMENT ARE PERMITTED. TOERUSTING WORD TOEGELAAT NIE.

2. ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. ANSWER 2. BEANTWOORD AL DIE VRAE.

SECTION A IN THE BOOK PROVIDED TO BEANTWOORD AFDELING A IN DIE
YOU AND SECTION B ON THE ANSWER BOEK AAN U UITGEDEEL EN AFDELING
SHEET PROVIDED. UPON COMPLETION B OP DIE ANTWOORDBLAD VERSKAF. U
OF THE TEST YOU MUST RETURN YOUR MOET U VRAESTEL, ANTWOORDBLAD
QUESTION PAPER, ANSWER SHEET EN ANTWOORDBOEK(E) NA AFLOOP
AND ANSWER BOOK(S) TO THE VAN DIE TOETS INHANDIG.
INVIGILATOR.

3. REFER TO CASE LAW AND LEGISLATION 3. VERWYS NA REGSPRAAK EN

WHERE RELEVANT. WETGEWING WAAR RELEVANT.

4. THIS PAPER CONSISTS OF 8 PAGES (THIS 4. HIERDIE VRAESTEL BESTAAN UIT 8

ONE INCLUDED). BLADSYE (HIERDIE EEN INGESLUIT).
 SECTION A / AFDELING A

Please answer this section in your answer book / Beantwoord hierdie gedeelte
asb. in u antwoordboek.

QUESTION 1 / VRAAG 1

Provide definitions of the following legal concepts / Verskaf definisies vir die
volgende regskonsepte:

(a) Commorientes (4x½ = 2)

Two or more people who die more or less simultaneously in the same disaster

(b) A Nasciturus / 'n Nasciturus (2x½ =1)

Already conceived yet unborn foetus
[3]

QUESTION 2 / VRAAG 2

Name the effects of an order of presumption of death which has been issued in
terms of the Inquests Act 58 of 1959 / Noem die effekte van 'n bevel van vermoede
van dood wat uitgerek is ingevolge die Wet op Geregtelike Doodsondersoeke 58 van
1959. [4 x ½ = 2]

 Estate administered subject to security / cautio de restituendo

 Life policies paid out subject to security / cautio de restituendo
 Marriage automatically dissolved

QUESTION 3 / VRAAAG 3
“Abortion terminates the life of a human being.”
Christian Lawyers of SA v Minister of Health 1998 (4) SA 1113 (T) at 1116G.

Discuss the above statement critically within the context of the arguments and
decision of the Court in this judgment / Bespreek bogenoemde stelling krities binne
die konteks van die argumente en uitspraak van die Hof in hierdie beslissing. [15]

Bladsy / Page 2 of 11
In the above case, the constitutionality of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy
Act was challenged / In die bogenoemde beslissing is die grondwetlikheid van die
Wet op Keuse oor die Beëindiging van Swangerskap aangeveg. One of the
arguments raised by the plaintiff was this statement, that abortion (termination of
pregnancy) ends the life of a person / Een van die argumente wat deur die eiser
geopper is, is hierdie stelling dat aborsie (beëindiging van swangerskap) die lewe
van 'n persoon beëindig It was also argued that the Constitution makes provision for
the protection of all life and that the unborn must thus also be protected and that
aborting a foetus infringes on such foetus' right to life and thus section 11 of the
Constitution. / Daar is ook geargumenteer dat die Grondwet voorsiening maak vir die
beskerming van alle lewe en dat die ongeborene dus ook op hierdie manier beskerm
word en dat aborsie inbreuk maak op 'n ongeborene se reg op lewe en dus artikel 11
van die Grondwet. The court was thus requested to declare the Act unconstitutional
in its entirety / Hof dus versoek om die Wet as geheel ongrondwetlik te verklaar

The defendant raised exception raised against this argument as containing no cause
of action because a foetus cannot be the bearer of rights and thus also not the right
to life as protected by s 11 of the Constitution. The point of departure in SA law is
that legal subjectivity begins at birth. / Die verweerder het eksepsie teen hierdie
argument aangeteken deur aan te voer dat daar geen eisoorsaak uitgemaak is nie
omdat 'n fetus nie die draer van regte kan wees nie, dus ook nie reg op lewe soos
beskerm deur art 11 van Grondwet. Die uitgangspunt in SA reg is dat
regsubjektiwiteit eers by geboorte ontstaan.

The Court confirmed that a foetus is not a bearer of rights in terms of Constitution,
specifically not s 11 – thus the particulars of claim do not make out cause of action /
Hof bevestig dat die fetus nie 'n draer van regte ingevolge Grondwet is nie, spesifiek
nie art 11 nie – dus bevat die besonderhede van vordering geen eisoorsaak.

In its ratio decidendi the Court examined meaning of "everyone" as used

interchangeably with "every person" and found the terms to be synonymous. It also
examined the common law status of the foetus and found that South Africa denies a
foetus legal personality. In its examination of the common law position, the Court
refers to Christian League v Rall (which dealt with termination of pregnancy and
status of foetus under common law). The Court further examined the meaning of the
word "everyone" in the context of other provisions of Constitution and found that, had
the drafters wanted to provide protection to foetus, they would have done so
expressly. The ideal place to do so would have been in s 28. It was further noted that
s 12(2) provides everyone with the right to make decisions concerning reproduction
and to security in and control over their body and does not qualify a woman's right in
this respect.

Another consideration by the court was the potential anomalous consequences of

affording a foetus the constitutional protection to the right to life. This would grant the

Bladsy / Page 3 of 11
foetus the same protection as that of the mother and termination would constitute
murder.

Finally, the Court considered the Constitution as 'primarily and emphatically' an

egalitarian Constitution in terms of which proper regard must be given to the rights of
women which includes the full and actual enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. This
means that the state may not unfairly discriminate against anyone, inter alia, on
grounds of sex (s 9). The Court also referred to ss 12; 10; 11; 14; 15 and 27.

Own opinion on the above statement?

QUESTION 4 / VRAAG 4

Katleho was last seen on 13 August 2016, at her 42 nd birthday party. She enjoyed
the party with her friends and seemed to be in good spirits when she left the party in
her motor vehicle at around 22:00. The next morning, when she had not returned
home, her husband and children went looking for her. They found no trace of her,
but did, a week later, find her car abandoned at a train station about 200 km from
their place of residence. Katleho's husband reported the matter to the police,
indicating that she has, for the past 20 years, been HIV positive but has been
managing the disease and living a 'normal' life on antiretroviral medication. He also
informed the police that she has always been a bubbly person and had loved her job
as a forensic auditor at a medium-sized auditing firm up until the time of her
disappearance. Further investigation by the police revealed that it may have been
possible that Katleho had been embezzling large sums of money from her employer
in the seven years leading up to her disappearance.

Katleho's husband approaches you, a candidate attorney for advice. He, as the sole
beneficiary to Katleho's estate, wants to know from you what he can do to have
Katleho's estate administered. Advise him on what he stands to do, as well as his
prospect of success of having Katleho's estate administered.

Katleho was laas op 13 Augustus 2016, by haar 42ste verjaarsdagpartytjie gesien.

Sy het die partytjie met haar vriende geniet en dit het gelyk of sy in ligte luim was toe
sy die partytjie om en by 22:00 in haar motorvoertuig verlaat het. Die volgende

Bladsy / Page 4 of 11
oggend, toe sy nog nie by die huis teruggekeur het nie, het haar man en haar
kinders vir haar gaan soek. Hulle het geen spoor van haar gevind nie maar het, een
week later, haar verlate motorvoertuig naby 'n treinstasie sowat 200km van hulle
huis af gekry. Katleho se man het die saak aan die polisie gerapporteer en vir die
polisie aangedui dat sy vir die afgelope 20 jaar met MIV lewe, maar dat sy die siekte
bestuur en 'n 'normale' lewe lei op haar antiretrovirale medikasie. Hy het ook vir die
polisie aangedui dat sy 'n borrelende persoonlikheid het en dat sy baie life was vir
haar werk as forensiese ouditeer by 'n mediumgrootte ouditeersfirma tot en met die
tydstip van haar verdwyning. Verdere ondersoek deur die polisie het dit aan die lig
gebring dat dit dalk moontlik kon gewees het dat Katleho groot bedrae geld by haar
werkgewer in die sewe jaar voor haar verdwyning verduister het.

Katleho se man nader u, 'n kandidaatprokureur vir advies. Hy is die enigste

beginstigde tot Katleho se boedel en wil by jou weet wat hy kan om Katleho se
boedel te laat beredder. Adviseer hom oor wat hy staan om te doen, asook die
moontlikheid van sukses om Katleho se boedel beredder te kry. [10]

Kateho's husband would be advised to apply for an order of presumption of death in

terms of the common law, as this will result in Katleho's estate automatically being
administered. He would have to approach the High Court in the area in which
Katleho was domiciled immediately prior to her disappearance and would bear the
onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that she is dead rather than alive.

When exercising its discretion in deciding whether or not to grant the order, the Court
will consider various factors, as established by In Re Beaglehole. These factors
include (but are not limited to) the age of the missing person; the length of time of the
missing person's disappearance; the health of the missing person; the risk
associated with the missing person's occupation and the emotional (mental) state of
the missing person.

in casu, Katleho would have been 43 years old at the time of the application. As the
Court, in Ex Parte Pieters stated that the age of 73 is not advanced enough an age
to assume death, her relatively young age would not sway the Court to believe that
Katleho has died as a result of old age.

Bladsy / Page 5 of 11
Katleho has been missing for less than two years. While there is no minimum time
period for which a person has to be missing in order for the order to be granted, in
Ex Parte Stoter the Court stated that two years is too short a period to grant such an
order. As such, the period for which she was missing, alone, would not be sufficient
to be granted such an order.

Katleho was HIV positive, but had been successfully managing the disease for 20
years. Given the other facts of the case, it is not impossible for her to have accessed
and continued using ARV medication since her disappearance. (In Ex Parte Stoter,
the missing person suffered from high blood pressure and the court did not grant the
order.)

The facts indicate that Katleho was in a state of good mental health (she left the
party in high spirits and had a 'bubbly' personality). Even though her car was found
abandoned (as in Ex Parte Holden), it was found abandoned near a train station,
which could indicate her having taken a train, unlike in Ex Parte Holden, where the
missing person suffered from depression and had abandoned his car near a
waterfall.

Katleho's job as a forensic auditor did not expose her to physical danger.

Finally, the circumstances surrounding her disappearance indicate that she, rather
than being dead, had left to start a new life elsewhere to avoid the consequences of
her having embezzled large sums of money from her employer (as in Ex Parte
James). The fact that her car was found at a train station indicates that she could
have taken a train rather than travelled by car to a destination to start her new life
with the embezzled funds.

It is thus unlikely that Katleho's husband will be successful in his application for an
order of presumption of death. It is, however, possible for Katleho's estate to be
administered without the order, subject to the provision of security (depending on the
value of the estate), as occurred in Ex Parte Pieters (although in casu security wasn't
required).

Totaal afdeling A / Total section A: [30]

Bladsy / Page 6 of 11
 SECTION B / AFDELING B

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS / MEERVOUDIGE KEUSEVRAE

Please answer on the answer sheet which has been attached for this purpose
at the end of the paper. Please remember to hand the question paper in with
your answer book(s) / Beantwoord asb. op die antwoordblad wat aan die einde
van hierdie vraestel vir hierdie doeleinde aangeheg is. Onthou ook asb. om die
vraestel saam met u antwoordboek(e) in te handig.

1. Mr X was found guilty of the rape, mutilation and murder of a six year-old girl. He
has been sentenced to life imprisonment and is currently serving his sentence. In
terms of the South African law Mr X is
(a) no longer a legal subject since he violated the subjective rights of another;
(b) no longer a legal subject since he violated the subjective rights of another
but is still a natural person;
(c) still a legal subject but is no longer allowed to exercise any subjective rights;
(d) still a legal subject but is no longer allowed to participate in the legal
intercourse;
(e) none of the above.

Mnr X is skuldig bevind aan die verkragting, verminking en moord op ʼn ses-jarige

meisie. Hy is tot lewenslange gevangenisstraf gevonnis en dien tans die vonnis
uit. In terme van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg is mnr X

(a) nie meer ʼn regsubjek nie omdat hy inbreuk gemaak het op ʼn ander se
subjektiewe regte;
(b) nie meer ʼn regsubjek nie omdat hy inbreuk gemaak het op ʼn ander se
subjektiewe regte maar wel nog ʼn natuurlike persoon;
(c) wel nog ʼn regsubjek maar word nie toegelaat om enige subjektiewe regte uit
te oefen nie;
(d) wel nog ʼn regsubjek maar word nie toegelaat om aan die regsverkeer deel
te neem nie;
(e) nie een van bogenoemde nie.

Bladsy / Page 7 of 11
2. In terms of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 51 of 1992, “birth” has the
following meaning:

(a) the birth of a child who is viable at birth;

(b) the birth of a child born alive;
(c) the birth of a still-born child who reached viability in ventre matris;
(d) (a) and (c);
(e) (b) and (c).

Volgens die Wet op Registrasie van Geboortes en Sterftes 51 van 1992 beteken
“geboorte”:

(a) die geboorte van ʼn kind wat lewensvatbaar gebore word;

(b) die geboorte van ʼn kind wat lewend gebore word;
(c) die geboorte van ʼn dooie kind wat tot lewensvatbaarheid in ventre matris
gevorder het;
(d) (a) en (c);
(e) (b) en (c).

3. The capacity to act is the capacity to participate in legal intercourse, that is, to
perform valid juristic acts. A juristic act is:

(a) any voluntary human act which has legal consequences;

(b) a voluntary human act to which the legal consequences are attached as
intended by the person performing the act;
(c) an event to which the objective law attaches consequences;
(d) acts, both human and other, which cause harm to another;
(e) the fulfilment of a legal duty in terms of the objective law.

Handelingsbevoegdheid is die bevoegdheid om aan die regsverkeer deel te

neem, dws om regshandelinge te verrig. ʼn Regshandeling is:

(a) enige vrywillige menslike handeling met regsgevolge;

(b) ʼn vrywillige menslike handeling waaraan die regsgevolge verleen word soos
beoog deur die handelende persoon;

Bladsy / Page 8 of 11
 (c) enige gebeurtenis waaraan regsgevolge deur die objektiewe reg geheg
word;
(d) sowel menslike as nie-menslike handelinge wat skade aan iemand
berokken;
(e) die voldoening aan ʼn regsplig opgelê deur die objektiewe reg.

4. For purposes of sec 239 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 the term “birth”
means:

(a) the birth of a child that showed any sign of life;

(b) that there must have been separation between the body of the mother and
the foetus;
(c) that the child must have lived independently;
(d) (b) and (c);
(e) none of the above.

Vir doeleindes van art 239 van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977 beteken
“geboorte”:

(a) die geboorte van ʼn kind wat enige teken van lewe getoon het;
(b) dat daar skeiding is tussen die moederlyf en die vrug;
(c) dat die kind selfstandig moes geleef het;
(d) (b) en (c);
(e) nie een van bogenoemde nie.

5. Choose the INCORRECT statement:

A person's capacity to litigate:
(a) is influenced by various factors, including age and domicile.
(b) includes his/her capacity to act as respondent in a civil application.
(c) includes his/her capacity to act as applicant in a civil application.
(d) includes his/her capacity to act as defendant in a civil action.
(e) includes his/her capacity to stand accused in a criminal case.

Bladsy / Page 9 of 11
Kies die VERKEERDE stelling:
'n Persoon se verskyningsbevoegdheid:
(a) word deur verskeie faktore, insluitend ouderdom en domisilie beïnvloed.
(b) sluit in sy/haar bevoegdheid om as respondent in 'n siviele aansoek op te
tree.
(c) sluit in sy/haar bevoegdheid om as applikant in 'n siviele aansoek op te
tree.
(d) sluit in sy/haar bevoegdheid om as verweerder in 'n siviele aksie op te
tree.
(e) sluit in sy/haar bevoegdheid om aangekla te word in 'n strafsaak.

Totaal afdeling B / Total section B: [5]

Bladsy / Page 10 of 11
 NAME / NAAM:____________________________________

Student number / Studentenommer:____________________________________

SECTION B / AFDELING B
ANSWER SHEET / ANTWOORDBLAD

Please circle the letter which represents the correct answer. There is only ONE
correct answer for each question / Omkring asseblief die letter wat die korrekte
antwoord verteenwoordig. Daar is slegs EEN korrekte antwoord vir elke vraag.

Vraag /
Question
1 a b c d e
2 a b c d e
3 a b c d e
4 a b c d e
5 a b c d e

TOTAAL VAN VRAESTEL / TOTAL OF PAPER: [35]

Bladsy / Page 11 of 11