![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg/640px-Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg&w=640&q=50)
Hassam v Jacobs
South African legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Hassam v Jacobs?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Hassam v Jacobs NO and Others, an important case in South African family law and law of succession, was heard in the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 19 February 2009 and decided on 15 July 2009. It concerned the proprietary consequences of polygynous Muslim marriage in the context of intestate succession.
Hassam v Jacobs | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
Full case name | Hassam v Jacobs NO and Others |
Decided | 15 July 2009 (2009-07-15) |
Docket nos. | CCT 83/08 |
Citations | [2009] ZACC 19; 2009 (11) BCLR 1148 (CC) ; 2009 (5) SA 572 (CC) |
Case history | |
Prior actions | Hassam v Jacobs NO and Others [2008] ZAWCHC 37 in the High Court of South Africa, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O’Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J |
Case opinions | |
As a consequence of the constitutional right to equality, the word "spouse" as used in the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 includes the surviving partners to a polygamous Muslim marriage. | |
Decision by | Nkabinde J (unanimous) |
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Bess Nkabinde, the Constitutional Court held that it was inconsistent with the right to equality to deny polygynous Muslim spouses the rights of intestate inheritance and maintenance that were granted to other surviving spouses. Such spouses were therefore entitled to a portion of their deceased spouse's estate under the Intestate Succession Act, 1981. The judgment extended the ruling in Daniels v Campbell, which had come to the same conclusion in respect of monogamous Muslim spouses.