PLAGIARISM DECLARATION

Names & Surname: Kagiso Simphiwe Hlongwane

Student Number: 4106405

Students are required to complete this Declaration and include it after the Cover Page of every assignment,
essay and take-home test submitted for credit in the Law Faculty.

An assignment, essay or take–home test submitted without a completed Declaration will not be evaluated
I hereby declare that: x

I have read and understood the

relevant sections in the Law Students’
Handbook relating to plagiarism,
citation and referencing.

I understand what plagiarism means

and that it is the worst academic sin.
I have acknowledged all quotations
which I have used in my
assignment, essay, or take-home test.

I have acknowledged all the ideas of

others which I have used in my
assignment, essay, or take-home test.

I have acknowledged all my sources

in accordance with the referencing
rules found in the Law Students’
Handbook.

I have included a bibliography of all

my sources.
I have not copied anyone else’s
assignment, essay, or take-home test.
or any part thereof.

I have not permitted anyone else to

copy my assignment, essay or
take-home test or any part thereof.

I have therefore not plagiarised.

Signature:

1
Table of Contents
Plagiarism Declaration………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1.
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3.
The influence of the Roman-Dutch concept of universal community of property…………………………………. 3-6.

The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 199 …………………………………………………………………7-11.

The amendment of section 7(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 by the
Recognition of Customary Marriages Amendment Act 1 of 2021. …………………………………………………….11.
How section 10 of the RCMA allows parties to marry under both customary law and the Marriage Act
without stipulating the proprietary consequences of a customary marriage. ………………………………………12.
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12.

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13.

2
Introduction

The act of entering into matrimony bears varying implications for individuals in the
population of South Africa. For, others it constitutes a vibrant commemoration of lineage
enshrined by archaic African rituals and vibrant cultural practices. Regardless of the diverse
ways in which we commemorate love and commitment, it remains an incontrovertible truth
that marriage is ultimately a legal affair. It is essential to consider the requirement that a
marriage must be carefully arranged, ratified, or commemorated according to the prevailing
legal regulations.1 This article is based on a critical analysis of customary law marriages,
particularly related to the influence of the Roman-Dutch Law on the concept of universal
community of property, the Recognition of Customary Marriages Amendment Act, and case
law. The article will first explain the concept customary marriage and Roman-Dutch law.

The influence of the Roman-Dutch concept of universal community of property

A customary marriage is defined as a union that is negotiated, celebrated, and concluded in

terms of indigenous African customary law. Roman-Dutch law is an uncodified and judge-
made legal system based on Roman law as applied in the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th
centuries. Roman-Dutch law is generally held to be the common law of South Africa. The
principle of universal community of property is derived from the Roman-Dutch legal system.
It has been a fundamental component of matrimonial law in South Africa and other
jurisdictions that have adopted this framework.2 In the event that the couple doesn't choose
their marital property arrangement before getting married, community of property will be
used as their default arrangement.3 Contemporary, monogamous customary unions are
regarded as existing within the realm of community of property arrangements. Whereas
polygamous customary unions may be construed as a variant of the community of property
model that has been modified to align with customary practices.4 The community of property
has been defined as an indivisible joint estate that encompasses all assets obtained by the
spouses prior to and during the duration of their marriage.5 The distribution of the estate
constitutes equal shares between the marital partners. Any debts or obligations accrued both
prior to and throughout the course of the matrimonial union may be reclaimed from the
shared assets.6 Certain assets and liabilities are designated to be excluded from the joint
estate, and as such, they are subject to individual spouses' control. Upon the dissolution of a
marriage due to either divorce or death, the involved parties are entitled to an equitable share
of the remaining estate's residue.7 Following the settlement of the liabilities stemming from
the joint estate, an equal distribution of said residue amongst the parties shall be made. The

1
Ibid p.6
2
Nhlapho T & Himonga C African Customary Law in South Africa: Post Apartheid and living law perspectives
(2014) ch 7.
3
Morudu LN, Maimela C ‘The indigenisation of customary law: Creating an indigenous legal pluralism within
the South African dispensation: possible or not?’ (2021) 54 (No.1) De Jure Law Journal 54 69.
4
South African Law Reform Commission Issue paper 41 (Project 100E) Review of aspects of Matrimonial
Property Law (2021).
5
Nhlapho T & Himonga C African Customary Law in South Africa: Post Apartheid and living law perspectives
(2014) ch 7
6
Ibid p.227
7
Ibid p.227

3
legal framework set forth the conditions in which the joint estate may be partitioned while the
marriage is still ongoing.8 Although the system has exhibited benefits for both couples and
families, it has also attracted considerable criticism for its tendency to promote exploitation
and generate inequitable outcomes concerning joint ownership.9
In South Africa, under Roman-Dutch law, civil unions were the only type of marriage that
was recognized by the government. Customary marriages only received a limited amount of
recognition. In the realm of legislation and common law, customary unions were granted a
level of acknowledgment when they were officially registered under the Black
Administration Act 38 of 1927. In terms of Section 22(6) of the BAA, civil marriages entered
into by black individuals were historically excluded from the community of property and
profit and loss framework. Thus, the parties involved had to make their intent to form a
marriage under the community of property and profit and loss framework, explicitly at least a
month prior to the ceremonial event.10 In circumstances where a husband had previously
entered into a customary marriage with one woman, prior to his subsequent civil marriage to
another woman, the latter union was treated as a customary marriage rather than a community
of property arrangement.11 The enactment of the Matrimonial Property Act, No. 88 of 1984,
resulted in the eradication of a husband's marital authority. When it came to allowing women
to assert their ownership rights in customary marriages, several of the Act's discriminatory or
exclusive elements drew criticism.12 The Matrimonial Property Law Amendment Act resulted
in the repeal of Section 22(6). This action involved the elimination of Section 22(6) of the
BAA and the provision of Sections 21(2)(a) and 25(3) within the MPA.13 This legislative
change presented individuals who previously selected out of community of property under
Section 22(6) of the BAA, with the option to alter their marital regime within a timeframe of
two years from the MPA's commencement date of 2 December 1988.14 Married couples who
elected to modify their marital regime were obliged to formally execute and duly register a
notarial contract that attested to such alterations.15
In the case of Sithole and another v Sithole and another, it was established that the parties
involved, namely Mrs. Agnes Sithole and Mr. Sithole, entered into a matrimonial union in
December of 1972. The BAA's Section 22(6) conferred upon the marriage the status of being
out of community of property. On the occasion when the Application was presented to the
High Court, it was revealed that the matrimony of Mr. and Mrs. Sithole had endured for a

8
Ibid p.227
9
South African Law Reform Commission Issue paper 41 (Project 100E) Review of aspects of Matrimonial
Property Law (2021).
10
Nhlapho T & Himonga C African Customary Law in South Africa: Post Apartheid and living law perspectives
(2014) p.282
11
Ibid p.283
12
Morudu LN, Maimela C ‘The indigenisation of customary law: Creating an indigenous legal pluralism within
the South African dispensation: possible or not?’ (2021) 54 (No.1) De Jure Law Journal 54 69.
13
Sithole F (2021) Paradigm shift in property rights for black marriages Available at:
https://www.golegal.co.za/property-rights-black-marriages/ [Accessed at 22/04/2022]

14
Ibid
15
Ibid

4
remarkable duration of 47 years.16 The nuptial union in question was additionally established
under the community of property regime as per Section 21(2)(a) of the Marriages Act (MPA),
which did not entail the automatic alteration of the matrimonial regime for black partners. 17
Mrs. Sithole served as a homemaker who catered to the various requirements of the
household. In the year 2000, the aforementioned couple procured a matrimonial dwelling that
was recorded under the legal ownership of Mr. Sithole. In light of the irreparable dissolution
of the marital union, Mr. Sithole made a threatening statement regarding the possible sale of
the matrimonial residence. Mrs. Sithole successfully pursued a declaratory order, which
effectively prohibited and subjected Mr. Sithole from selling or disposing of the matrimonial
property in any form.18 This restrictive measure was implemented throughout the ongoing
case in the High Court and ultimately concluded in the Constitutional Court.

The High Court issued a ruling in favour of Mrs. Sithole, stating that Section 21(2)(a) of the
MPA was unconstitutional and invalid as it sustained and prolonged the discriminatory
effects of Section 22(6) of the BAA.19 The Court's ruling stated that Section 21(2)(a) aimed to
establish a distinction between the marriages of black spouses that were contracted preceding
the year 1988 and those that were initiated after the implementation of the Marriage and
Property Act (MPA).20 The BAA was found to have stipulated, in addition to the prohibition
of black spouses from entering into community of property marriages, the compounding
effect of disallowing such spouses from receiving the legal safeguard associated with such a
union. The Court emphasized that Section 21(2)(a) exhibited discriminatory tendencies as it
encroached upon the fundamental rights of black women in South Africa. By prohibiting
black women from the protection that marriages in community of property provide, it
perpetuated their marginalization within society.21 The aforementioned phenomenon
effectively resulted in the complete reliance of black women on their spouses, who more
often than not wielded financial power within the household. The High Court rendered a
decision whereby all marriages of black individuals that had been concluded according to
section 22(6) of the Black Administration Act (BAA) were to be granted the status of
community of property marriages. The order was issued with retrospective effect from the

16
Sithole and Another v Sithole and Another (CCT 23/20) [2021] ZACC 7; 2021 (6) BCLR 597 (CC); 2021 (5)
SA 34 (CC) (14 April 2021)
17
Ibid para 1
18
Ibid para 8
19
Ibid para 3
20
Ibid para 3
21
Ibid para 23

5
date of its pronouncement.22 Individuals desiring to renounce the marital regime can carry out
such action employing drafting and officially documenting a notarial agreement. This
contract must be duly authorized and recorded. The ruling put forth by the High Court
underwent reference to the Constitutional Court for verification as per the provision
stipulated in Section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court has determined that Section 21(2)(a) of the MPA constitutes unfair
discrimination based on race, gender, and age. It has further concluded that the expeditious
removal of this section is imperative in light of the severe ramifications it has imposed on the
marginalized black population. Section 36 of the Constitution was invoked to determine the
justifiability of the discrimination, whereby it was determined that the discrimination was
deemed unjustifiable.23 The court duly observed that the BAA had been discriminatory on the
basis of race because it had instituted a distinct system for the institution of matrimony
amongst individuals of Black communities. Section 22(6) of the Black Administration Act
(BAA) compelled black couples to elect community of property as their regime of
matrimonial property, in contrast to other racial groups whose selection of community of
property was automatic. Section 21(2)(a) of the Marriage Act (MPA) did not effectuate the
conversion of black marriages to community of property, contrary to the conversion of
marriages belonging to other races. The onus is placed upon black marital partners to
effectuate a conversion in their prevailing matrimonial structure. The Constitutional Court
has concurred that the perpetuation of discrimination by Section 21(2)(a) renders it
unconstitutional.

Significantly, the partners affiliated with customary unions were accorded the status of a
spouse concerning workmen's compensation, income tax, and maintenance. To
control customary marriages, particularly polygynous unions, the legislature attempted to do
so via the Recognition of the Customary Marriages Act. The Marriage Act, 25 of 1961
stipulates that for a man and a woman, who are bound by customary marriage, to enter into a
legal marriage, they must not be engaged in another customary marriage with any other
individual. Following civil law, it is impermissible for a spouse in a customary marriage to
enter into matrimony with another individual whilst their customary union remains in force. 24

22
Ibid para 3
23
Ibid para 47
24
Meyer MM (2012) ‘Recognition of Customary Marriages’, Justice College MT32 pp1-32

6
The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998

The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, 120 of 1998, was introduced on November 15,
2000, marking the first instance in South African history where customary marriages were
granted full legal recognition. Before the implementation of the Recognition of Customary
Marriages Act (RCMA), women in monogamous customary marriages were unable to assert
their proprietary rights due to the out-of-community property system employed within such
marriages.25 Specifically, women were precluded from making such claims as a consequence
of the limited legal recognition afforded to their unions.

According to Section 6 of the RCMA, a wife engaging in a customary marriage is endowed

with equal status and capacity to her husband. However, this applies within the framework of
the matrimonial property system governing their marriage. 26 Furthermore, the wife possesses
full autonomy in acquiring and disposing of assets, entering into contracts, and litigating as
well as any rights and powers bestowed upon her by customary law. Section 7(1) of the
Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA) stipulates that the proprietary outcomes of
customary marriages that were contracted before the implementation of the Act, remain
subject to customary law.27 Section 7(2) exclusively aimed at governing new marriages
customary marriages that occurred following the passing of the Act in the context of
community of property, except any alternate agreements reached through antenuptial
arrangements.28 The provision of section 7(1) of the Act exhibited discriminatory conduct
towards women who were already married before the legislation came into force. Section 7 of
the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA) presented a paradoxical scenario
contradicting the provisions of section 6. This inconsistency arises from the fact that while
section 6 recognizes spouses as equals in a customary marriage, section 7(1) negates this
accord by inferring that women's assets in customary marriages of an orthodox nature would
persistently vest in their husbands. The application of Section 7(1) and (2) of the Recognition
of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA) resulted in the exclusion of numerous women who
were previously in customary marriages, thereby conferring proprietary rights exclusively

25
Ibid p. 63
26
Ndebele NL (2021), Does the Recognition of Customary Marriages Amendment Act discriminate against
women’s marital property rights? Available at: https://www.derebus.org.za/does-the-recognition-of-customary-
marriages-amendment-act-discriminate-against-womens-marital-property-rights/#:~:text=Section
%207(2)%20sought%20to,the%20commencement%20of%20the%20Act. [Accessed at 18/04/2023].
27
Recognition of Customary Law Marriages Act 120 of 1998
28
Recognition of Customary Law Marriages Act 120 of 1998

7
upon those who entered into such marriages after the enactment of the statute. 29
Consequently, the constitutional legitimacy of the aforementioned stipulations was contested
in the landmark legal cases of Gumede and Ramuhovhi, about customary marriages of the
monogamous and polygamous nature before the enactment of the relevant legislation.30

The case of Gumede v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2009 (3) BCLR
243 (CC) pertains to the customary marriage between Mrs. Gumede and her husband, which
commenced in 1968 and endured for more than four decades. 31 Throughout the course of her
matrimonial union, Mrs. Gumede proficiently managed the domestic affairs and diligently
tended to the upbringing of her children, as her spouse-imposed restrictions on her
occupational pursuits.32 Before the grant of their divorce, Mrs. Gumede contested the validity
of Section 7(1) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA), which presumed
that the proprietary ramifications of a customary marriage that was entered into before the
enactment of the said Act were subject to customary law. 33 Furthermore, the individual in
question contested the two provincial statutes, namely the KwaZulu Act on the Code of Zulu
Law 16 of 1985 and the Natal Code of Zulu Law (published in Proclamation R151 of 1987),
which stipulated that the male spouse assumes the role of the family head and sole proprietor
of all the family assets, enabling their undivided discretion in managing said assets. 34 The
elucidation of the codified provincial Acts resulted in the determination that a female spouse
in a customary union of long-standing is not entitled to any ownership of family assets either
during the marriage or following its termination. 35 The decision rendered by the High Court
regarding the discriminatory nature of the codified customary laws, the KwaZulu Act and
Natal Code, on grounds of gender, was upheld by the CC. 36 This stems from the observation
that the aforementioned provisions engendered discriminatory treatment towards wives
versus their husbands in a customary marriage by exclusively and unjustly burdening the
former with inequitable patrimonial consequences. Furthermore, the Recognition of
Customary Marriages Act (RCMA) introduced discrepancies distinguishing between

29
Ndebele NL (2021), Does the Recognition of Customary Marriages Amendment Act discriminate against
women’s marital property rights? Available at: https://www.derebus.org.za/does-the-recognition-of-customary-
marriages-amendment-act-discriminate-against-womens-marital-property-rights/#:~:text=Section
%207(2)%20sought%20to,the%20commencement%20of%20the%20Act.
30
Ibid
31
Gumede v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2009 (3) BCLR 243 (CC).
32
Ibid para 6-7
33
Ibid para 11
34
Ibid para 11
35
Ibid para 34
36
Ibid para 34

8
customary wives married pre- and post-enactment of the statute. 37 Hence, the court came to
the determination that the discriminatory provisions contained in sections 7(1) and (2) of the
relevant Act resulted in the classification of Mrs. Gumede, along with other customary wives
who were married before the Act's enactment, as being "incapable or unfit to hold or manage
the property."38 This highly inequitable categorization served to preclude them from
participating in economic activities, amidst a substantial redefinition of gender roles,
specifically concerning income and property.

The court has determined that the codified customary laws applicable to marriages entered
into before the enforcement of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act have
fundamentally impinged upon the safeguarding of equality and dignity that the Constitution
provides for all members of society, particularly with respect to women. The resulting marital
property regime has rendered women exceedingly vulnerable, as it not only compromises
their fundamental human dignity, but also leads to destitution and dependency. 39 The
presiding court determined that the outright prohibition of a customary spousal partner about
the possession of the family property diminishes the worth and defencelessness of said
partner. Consequently, the aforementioned conduct can be deemed biased and inequitable. 40
The court has confirmed the invalidity and unconstitutionality of the provisions challenged by
the court a quo. Nonetheless, there exists a limitation to this invalidity as it pertains solely to
monogamous customary marriages, rather than pre-Act polygamous marriages. The court
rendered a decision that custom law shall govern polygamous marriages until such time when
parliamentary action is taken.41 The court's reluctance to afford the identical safeguard to
polygamous unions elicits contemplation as to whether this decision was a consequence of
foresight concerning potential complications in the implementation of community of property
in the context of such marriages.42

The case of Ramuhovhi and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others
[2017] ZACC 41 involved applicants who were minors and had lost their father. The
deceased had been lawfully married to their mothers according to Venda customary law. In

37
Ibid para 34
38
Ibid para 35
39
Ibid para 36
40
Ibid para 46
41
Ibid para 56
42
Ibid

9
consequence, the application of Venda customary law was lawfully recognized under section
7(1) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act.43

During the legal proceedings, the applicants contended that the relevant Venda customary
law as well as the invocation of section 7(1), which imposed customary law regulations on
pre-Act customary marriages, resulted in the exclusion of their mothers (as customary wives)
from any ownership rights over the estate accumulated by the deceased. It has been posited
that such discrimination engendered bias against the customary wives and offspring of the
deceased. According to the customary law of the Venda people, wives were prohibited from
possessing any rights or authority over their marital property. 44 The High Court has
determined that women participating in polygamous marriages are consistently deprived of
participation in the management, control, and proprietorship of their marital assets. Empirical
evidence has identified Section 7(1) of the RCMA as discernibly discriminatory based on
gender, race, ethnicity, and social origin. More precisely, this section fails to extend the
shield of protection granted to women in monogamous marriages to those in polygamous
marriages, thereby exhibiting an inequitable treatment of women. 45 The CC has identified that
Section 7(1) exhibits discriminatory treatment towards women in pre-existing customary
marriages that practice polygamy, and further contravenes pertinent human rights instruments
and constitutional provisions encompassing the principles of equality and dignity. According
to the statement, the absence of ownership or authority over matrimonial assets places women
in pre-Act polygamous unions at a heightened risk of vulnerability and dependency upon
their husbands.46

The court ruled that section 7(1) maintains inequality between husbands and wives in
polygamous customary marriages, going against the goals of sections 6 and 7(6) to eliminate
such disparities. The court applied equitable reasoning to pre-Act polygamous customary
marriages, based on their perceived similarity to pre-Act monogamous customary marriages
and in line with the Gumede decision. The act of discrimination in which women were
deemed unsuitable to manage property under the pretext of being inferior to their husbands
was discovered to infringe upon their entitlement to dignity. The provision outlined in
Section 7(1) was discovered to curtail the entitlements to 'dignity' and the 'right to avoid
unjust discrimination' within a legal context.47 The CC issued an interim order stating that
43
Ramuhovhi and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2017] ZACC 41
44
Ibid para 9
45
Ibid para 9
46
Ibid para 42
47
Ibid para 43

10
both partners have equal rights over their matrimonial property until the legislature
intervenes. CC ruled that husbands and wives share control, management, and ownership of
family property. S 7(1)(a) of the RCMA regulates customary unions contracted before its
implementation. It grants equal ownership and management rights over matrimonial property
to the parties involved.48

The amendment of section 7(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of
1998 by the Recognition of Customary Marriages Amendment Act 1 of 2021.

Effective from 1 June 2021, the RCMA underwent an amendment which confers upon
spouses who were married under customary law, the right to claim a portion of the estate that
is held jointly in the event of either the decease of their spouse or the dissolution of their
marriage. In accordance with the RCMA, all customary marriages, irrespective of having
been established prior to or subsequent to the enactment of the aforementioned law, will be
recognized as marriages in community of property. Such recognition may only be altered by
means of an antenuptial contract.49 Consequently, the proposed measure shall preclude the
inclusion of couples who are conventionally wedded under the arrangement of out-of-
community of property regime, developed by an antenuptial agreement that precludes the
merging of profit and loss.50 For couples who elect to enter into a traditional or customary
marriage in the future, the absence of an antenuptial contract would imply that they will be
deemed to have entered into a community of property regime. This provision shall be
applicable to customary marriages of both polygamous and monogamous nature, which
encompasses marriages that were solemnized on a polygamous or monogamous basis prior to
November 2000, when the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA) was
promulgated.51

48
Ibid para
49
The Employee Benefits Network (2021) Changes brought about by the recognition of Customary Marriages
Amendment Act Available at: https://www.ebnet.co.za/changes-brought-about-by-the-recognition-of-customary-
marriages-amendment-act/ [Accessed on 26/04/2023]
50
Ibid
51
Ibid

11
How section 10 of the RCMA allows parties to marry under both customary law and the
Marriage Act without stipulating the proprietary consequences of a customary
marriage.

The RCMA's Section 10(1) stipulates a provision pertaining to modifying the current
marriage system. The provision asserts that individuals who partake in a legally recognized
monogamous customary union can transition from customary to civil marriages, per the
Marriage Act. Marriages entered into under the Marriage Act or the Civil Union Act 17 of
2006 are by default constituted as a community of property, profit, and loss unless expressly
reject the antenuptial agreement.52 It is crucial to acknowledge that monogamous customary
marriages regulated by the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA) are inherently
established as marriages in community of property and of profit and loss unless explicitly
omitted by means of an antenuptial contract. Hence, parity exists with regard to the status of
both categories of matrimony, alongside the associated proprietary ramifications thereof. 53

Conclusion
The South African Constitution can serve as a valuable instrument for promoting progressive
transformation, particularly in cases of dual oppression experienced by black women who
continue to endure the consequences of marriages contracted under the Bantu Authorities
Act. Nevertheless, the RCMA and RCMAA has made a successful attempt to redress the
crucial and enduring inequalities experienced by women throughout history. Additionally, it
is anticipated that the legislative branch will continue to delve deeper into certain ambiguous
areas that have yet to be fully resolved.

52
Maluleke T (2021), Failure to recognize equal status between customary and civil marriages. Available at:
https://www.derebus.org.za/failure-to-recognise-equal-status-between-customary-and-civil-marriages/
[Accessed on 23/04/2023]
53
Ibid

12
References
Case Law
Gumede v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2009 (3) BCLR 243 (CC).
Ramuhovhi and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2017] ZACC 41
Sithole and Another v Sithole and Another (CCT 23/20) [2021] ZACC 7; 2021 (6) BCLR 597 (CC);
2021 (5) SA 34 (CC) (14 April 2021)

Journal Article
Morudu LN, Maimela C (2021), ‘The indigenisation of customary law: Creating an indigenous legal
pluralism within the South African dispensation: possible or not?’, De Jure Law Journal Volume 54
(No.1) pp54-69.

Legislation
Recognition of Customary Law Marriages Act 120 of 1998

Online Articles
Maluleke T (2021), Failure to recognize equal status between customary and civil marriages.
Available at: https://www.derebus.org.za/failure-to-recognise-equal-status-between-customary-and-
civil-marriages/ [Accessed on 23/04/2023]

Ndebele NL (2021), Does the Recognition of Customary Marriages Amendment Act discriminate
against women’s marital property rights? Available at: https://www.derebus.org.za/does-the-
recognition-of-customary-marriages-amendment-act-discriminate-against-womens-marital-property-
rights/#:~:text=Section%207(2)%20sought%20to,the%20commencement%20of%20the%20Act.

The Employee Benefits Network (2021) Changes brought about by the recognition of Customary
Marriages Amendment Act Available at: https://www.ebnet.co.za/changes-brought-about-by-the-
recognition-of-customary-marriages-amendment-act/ [Accessed on 26/04/2023]

Sithole F (2021) Paradigm shift in property rights for black marriages Available at:
https://www.golegal.co.za/property-rights-black-marriages/ [Accessed at 22/04/2022]

Research Paper
Meyer MM (2012) ‘Recognition of Customary Marriages’, Justice College MT32 pp1-32

13
14