President of the RSA and Another v Women’s Legal Centre Trust and Others; Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v Faro and Others; and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v Esau and Others (612/2019) [2020] ZASCA 177 (18 December 2020)
President of the RSA and Another v Women’s Legal Centre Trust and Others; Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v Faro and Others; and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v Esau and Others (612/2019) [2020] ZASCA 177 (18 December 2020)
This document is 591.9 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 14
Act
10|
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Education
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
International Law
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
|
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
·
Human Rights
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Human Rights
|
|
Human Rights
|
|
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
·
Finance and Money
|
|
Human Rights
|
|
Human Rights
|
|
Finance and Money
|
|
Finance and Money
·
Human Rights
|
Judgment
4|
Reported
|
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
Wills Act 7 of 1953 — constitutionality of section 2C(1) — definition of “surviving spouse” — spouses in polygamous Muslim marriages excluded — unconstitutional |
|
Reported
|
Documents citing this one 2
Judgment
2|
Reported
Muslim marriages — non recognition — infringement of rights to dignity, equality, access to courts and principle of best interests of the child Constitutional invalidity — Divorce Act 70 of 1979 — Marriage Act 25 of 1961 — retrospectivity |
|
Reconsideration application brought in terms of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 – the inquiry is whether grave injustice would result if the order sought to be reconsidered were to stand – in this case the basis of the reconsideration application was that costs in an application for leave to appeal should not have been granted against the applicant based on the Biowatch principle – no evidence that the relevant principles were ignored or that discretion was exercised improperly in making the costs award. |