Your browser does not support JavaScript! Inheritance Rights of Domestic Partners: Volks NO v Robinson - Divorce, Family and Commercial Law Attorneys

Inheritance Rights of Domestic Partners: Volks NO v Robinson

HOME / Inheritance Rights of Domestic Partners: Volks NO v Robinson

Inheritance Rights of Domestic Partners: Volks NO v Robinson

Inheritance Rights of Domestic Partners: Volks NO v Robinson

Case name:                     Volks NO v Robinson

Citation:                         [2005] ZACC 2; 2005 (5) SA 28 (CC)

Court:                            Constitutional Court of South Africa

Date of Judgment:          28 January 2005

Overview of The Matter at Hand

Volks NO v Robinson is a significant case in South African family law that dealt with the constitutionality of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990 (the Act).

The case revolved around the exclusion of unmarried life partners from making claims for Maintenance under the Act, challenging the constitutionality of this exclusion.

Legal Issues Raised in The Case

Whether or not:

the exclusion of unmarried life partners from maintenance claims under the Act is constitutional.

the Act violates the constitutional rights of unmarried life partners to equality and dignity.

Relevance to The Relevant Field of Law

This case is highly relevant within the area of family law as it addresses the rights of unmarried life partners in the context of maintenance claims. It also highlights the intersection between constitutional rights and family law legislation, particularly the right to equality and dignity.

Applicable Legislation

The primary legislation applicable to this case is the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990, which governs maintenance claims by surviving spouses in South Africa.

Explanation of How the Legislation Applies to The Case

The Act establishes the framework for maintenance claims by surviving spouses, including the criteria for eligibility and the procedures for making such claims. However, it excludes unmarried life partners from making maintenance claims under the Act, forming the basis of the legal challenge in this case.

Comparison to Other Relevant Legislation

The Act needs to be considered alongside the South African Constitution, particularly the provisions related to equality and dignity, as well as other applicable family law legislation that may impact the rights of unmarried life partners.

Background and Facts of The Matter

A Detailed Description of The Facts Leading Up to The Case
The case involved the surviving partner of a deceased man who had lived with him in a permanent life partnership for over a decade but was excluded from making a maintenance claim under the Act due to their unmarried status.

Chronological Order of Events

The deceased man passed away, leaving behind his surviving partner.

The surviving partner, being unmarried, was excluded from making a maintenance claim under the Act.

The surviving partner challenged the constitutionality of this exclusion in court.

Relationship Between the Parties Involved

The parties involved in the case were the surviving partner, who was the Appellant (Volks NO), and the Respondent (Robinson), representing the state and defending the constitutionality of the Act.

Primary Legal Questions Raised in The Case

Whether or not:

the exclusion of unmarried life partners from maintenance claims under the Act violates their constitutional rights.

the Act is unconstitutional due to its exclusionary provisions.

Explanation of The Significance of Each Issue
The central legal questions in this case are significant as they involve the interpretation of constitutional rights, particularly the right to equality and dignity, in the context of family law legislation.

The outcome of this case could have broader implications for the rights of unmarried life partners and the constitutionality of similar exclusionary provisions in other legislation.

How the Issues Relate to The Relevant Area of Law
These legal questions directly relate to family law, specifically maintenance claims by surviving spouses, and raise broader issues of constitutional interpretation and the protection of fundamental rights within this legal framework.

Legal Arguments Presented

Summary of The Arguments Made by Both Parties
The Appellant argued that the exclusion of unmarried life partners from maintenance claims under the Act violated their constitutional rights to equality and dignity.

The Respondent, representing the state, argued that the Act’s exclusionary provisions were justified and constitutional.

Evaluation of Each Argument’s Strengths and Weaknesses

The Appellant’s Argument’s Strength:

It lies in its focus on fundamental constitutional rights and principles, notably equality and dignity. However, the weakness may be in demonstrating the specific impact of the exclusion on these rights.

The Respondent’s argument may be vital in justifying the legislative intent behind the Act but may face scrutiny in its application and potential discriminatory effects.

Discussion of Precedents and Other Relevant Case Law

The case may have referenced precedents and other applicable case law related to constitutional rights, family law, and similar exclusionary provisions in legislation to support the legal arguments presented by both parties.

Court’s Decision and Order

Summary of The Court’s Ruling
The Constitutional Court ruled that the exclusion of unmarried life partners from maintenance claims under the Act was unconstitutional as it violated their rights to equality and dignity.

Explanation of The Reasoning Behind the Decision

The court reasoned that the exclusionary provisions of the Act unjustly discriminated against unmarried life partners, denying them access to maintenance claims despite their enduring and committed relationships.

The Order Made by The Court

The court declared the relevant provisions of the Act invalid to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution and suspended the declaration of invalidity for a specified period, allowing Parliament to remedy the under-inclusiveness of the Act.

Analysis of The Impact of The Case

The case has significant implications for family law, particularly in recognising the rights of unmarried life partners in the context of maintenance claims. It sets a precedent for challenging exclusionary provisions in legislation that discriminate against specific categories of individuals based on their marital status.

Lessons to Be Learned from The Case
The case underscores the importance of interpreting family law legislation in line with constitutional principles and protecting the rights of all individuals, regardless of their marital status. It highlights the evolving nature of family structures and the need for legal frameworks to adapt to these changes.

Recommendations for Individuals Facing Similar Situations

Individuals in similar situations may take inspiration from this case to challenge exclusionary provisions in legislation that discriminate against them based on their marital status.

They should seek legal counsel to understand their rights and explore avenues for legal recourse.

Conclusion

Volks NO v Robinson is a seminal case that reflects the intersection of constitutional rights and family law in South Africa, particularly in recognising the rights of unmarried life partners in the context of maintenance claims.

Its outcome has broader implications for the interpretation of fundamental rights and the evolution of family law in the country.

Read More:

Spousal Maintenance in South Africa

Universal Partnerships in South Africa (Cohabitation)

Grasso v Grasso: Spousal Maintenance

Unmarried cohabitants: The court’s missed opportunity to adopt an inclusive approach to the term ‘spouse’

Volks NO v Robinson and Others

BOOK A CONSULTATION
Book a Consultation






    Send me a copy