A discussion of Moosa NO and others v Harnaker and others illustrating the need for legal recognition of Muslim marriages in South Africa

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: (2019) 6(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 115
• Pages: 115-130
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Date: 16 August 2019

115

A DISCUSSION OF MOOSA NO AND OTHERS

v HARNAKER AND OTHERS ILLUSTRATING

THE NEED FOR LEGAL RECOGNITION OF

MUSLIM MARRIAGES IN SOUTH AFRICA

Waheeda Amien*

Abstract

In this paper, one of the more recent decisions illustrating the South African

judiciary’s intervention in the context of Muslim marriages is discussed namely,

Moosa NO and Others v Harnaker and Others, which was decided in 2018.

The paper highlights several issues through a discussion of the Western Cape High

Court and Constitutional Court judgments in the Moosa NO case. For instance,

notwithstanding previously decided cases, which permitted Muslim spouses to

benefit from specific pieces of legislation, the Moosa NO case reinforces the fact

that non-recognition of Muslim marriages in South Africa causes Muslim spouses,

especially wives to continue to be excluded from legislation that has not been legally

challenged for excluding Muslim spouses. The case confirms that failure to afford

legal recognition to Muslim marriages results in the undermining of the rights to

equality and human dignity of Muslim spouses, particularly Muslim wives. The

case further illustrates the South African judiciary’s continued willingness to come

to the aid of parties married by Muslim rites by among others, bringing them

within the ambit of legislation that they are otherwise excluded from. Finally, the

case demonstrates the need for official recognition of Muslim marriages to obviate

the need for Muslim women having to approach the courts each time they require

access to legislative (and other) benefits that their African customary law and civil

law counterparts enjoy.

Keywords: Muslim marriages, Muslim spouses, Western Cape High Court

and Constitutional Court

Résumé

Dans cet article, l’une des décisions les plus récentes illustrant l’intervention

du pouvoir judiciaire sud-africain dans le contexte des mariages musulmans est

examinée, à savoir Moosa NO et autres contre Harnaker et autres, qui a été rendue

en 2018. L’article met en lumière plusieurs questions à travers une discussions sur

les arrêts de la Haute Cour de la Province du Cap-Occidental (Western-Cape)

ainsi que de la Cour Constitutionnelle dans l’affaire Moosa NO. Par exemple,

malgré les affaires précédemment jugées, qui permettaient aux époux musulmans

* BA LLB (Cape Town) LLM (Western Cape) PhD (Ghent). Associate Professor, Faculty of Law,

University of Cape Town. Attorney of the High Court of South Africa. Member of the Executive

Body of the International Commission on Legal Pluralism. The finalization of this paper was made

possible through an Academic Fellowship in Minority Studies, which was awarded to me by the

Institute of Human Rights, Abo Akademi University from 9 November to 11 December 2018. I

dedicate this article to the memory of my beloved parents, Abdul Razak and Mumtaaz Amien Juvlay.

(2019) 6(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 115

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

116 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN AFRICA VOL 6, NO 1, 2019

de bénéficier de certaines lois spécifiques, l’affaire Moosa NO renforce le fait que la

non-reconnaissance des mariages musulmans en Afrique du Sud fait que les époux

musulmans, en particulier les épouses, continuent à être exclus de la législation,

cela n’ayant pas été contesté légalement sur base de l’exclusion des conjoints

musulmans. Cette affaire confirme que le fait de ne pas reconnaître légalement les

mariages musulmans porte atteinte aux droits à l’égalité et à la dignité humaine

des conjoints musulmans, en particulier des épouses musulmanes. L’affaire témoigne

également de la volonté persistante des autorités judiciaires sud-africaines de venir

en aide aux parties mariées par des rites musulmans, en les faisant entrer dans le

champ de la législation dont elles sont autrement exclues. Enfin, l’affaire démontre

la nécessité d’une reconnaissance officielle des mariages musulmans afin d’éviter

que les femmes musulmanes aient à s’adresser aux tribunaux chaque fois qu’elles

ont besoin d’accéder aux avantages législatifs (et autres) dont bénéficient leurs

homologues du droit coutumier africain et du droit civil.

Mots-clés: mariages musulmans, époux musulmans, Haute Cour du Cap-

Occidental et Cour Constitutionnelle

Introduction

One way in which the South African Constitution1 gives effect to the

country’s religious and cultural diversity2 is through section 15(3),3

which enables the South African government to enact legislation to

recognise, among others, religious and traditional marriages. In this way,

African customary marr iages were recognised through the enactment of

the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act,4 which came into force

in 2000. For the first time in the history of South Africa, polygynous

marriages were given legal recognition. Prior to that, only monogamous

marriages were afforded legal recognition by being registered through

the Marriage Act.5 Yet, to date, religious marr iages including potentially

1 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

2 South Africa has a total population of 54.4 million comprising the following religious

communities: Christians (86%); traditional African religions (5.4%); Muslims (1.9%); Hindus

(0.9%); Jews (0.2%). Statistics South Africa, Table 9: Percentage distribution of religious affiliation

by province, 2015, General Household Survey, 28 (2015), http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/

P0318/P03182015.pdf (accessed 19 March 2019).

3 Section 15(3) provides:

(a) This section does not prevent legislation recognising–

(i) marriages concluded under any tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family

law; or

(ii) systems of personal and family law under any tradition, or adhered to by persons

professing a particular religion.

(b) Recognition in terms of paragraph (a) must be consistent with this section and the other

provisions of the Constitution.

4 120 of 1998.

5 25 of 1961.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd