customary law

This case concerns the ability of women to pass on their life interest in an estate to their children under customary law.  In this case, the deceased, the grandfather of the appellants, died intestate. According to the customary law of the Ga people of Osu, the deceased’s female descendants only have a life interest in the estate rather than ownership rights.  The first respondent, having outlived his siblings, claimed the right as the head of the family to sell one piece of the estate’s property.

The “Civil Party” brought allegations of adultery against her husband and the “cohabitant”, claiming her husband abandoned her to live with the cohabitant despite her earlier marriage with her husband in 1980.  The Civil Party and her husband had three children before he moved away.

The two accused persons were charged and convicted of having carnal knowledge against the order of nature –contrary to Section 153(a) of the Penal Code, which is understood to prohibit same-sex sexual relations. In the alternative, the two accused persons were charged with indecent practices between men contrary to Section 156 of the Penal Code. Both of the accused persons pleaded not guilty but were convicted of both charges and sentenced to the maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment including hard labor.

In this case, the Constitutional Court held that §7(1) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (RMCA) was inconsistent with 172(2) of the Constitution, and therefore invalid, because it unfairly discriminated against women in polygamous customary marriages entered into before the enactment of the RMCA on the bases of gender and race, ethnic, or social origin. This case followed Gumede v.

This case concerns the criteria for what constitutes a valid customary marriage. In question was whether or not the respondent was precluded from marrying another as a result of the prior customary marriage alleged. The case arose after the complainant filed a caveat against the issue of a registrar’s certificate in respect to an alleged ordinance marriage between the respondent and another woman.

The Act recognizes customary marriages solemnized in accordance with customary law. Customary law is defined as, “the customs and usages traditionally observed among the indigenous African peoples of South Africa and which form part of the culture of those peoples.” Both monogamous and polygamous marriages are recognized under the Act. Although registration of a customary marriage is peremptory, a failure to register a customary marriage does not affect the validity of that marriage. The definition of customary law in this Act does not apply to Hindu and Muslim customary marriages.

The Act abolishes the customary rule of primogeniture in as far as it applies to the law of succession and further extends the application of the Intestate Succession Act to the deceased estates of Africans who die intestate (without a will) and provides guidelines for interpreting the Intestate Succession Act in order to give effect to the new provisions and to ensure the protection of the rights of women to inherit.

Die Wet op Hervorming van die Gewoontereg van Opvolging en Regulering van Verwante Aangeleenthede 11 (2009)

The murder in this case stemmed from the defendants’ claim that one of them was the rightful heir to the Thombozi chieftaincy rather than the murder victim and her successors. The four men were charged with murder for cutting and striking the woman’s head with panga knives (machete) and a hoe repeatedly until she died. The victim was seated amongst her colleagues in front of the village court, as was customary for the group of women, when the defendants, from a nearby village, approached the group and asserted that they owned the court.

Republic v. Teanaa was a case regarding prosecution for bigamy under the Penal Code, heard in the High Court of Kiribati. The defendant married her first husband in 1981 and entered into a second marriage in 2001 while still legally married. In 2020, her first husband discovered the second marriage and reported her for bigamy.

The applicant sought a review of a decision to refuse her a protection visa under s65 of the Migration Act 1958. The application was refused because the applicant was allegedly not a person to whom Australia had protection obligations arising out of the Refugees Convention. The tribunal investigated the history of the victim and her claims of substantial risk of being forced to undergo FGM if she returned to Uganda.