The Constitutional Court has questioned whether it would not be overreaching its powers if it declared Section 1 of the Maintenance Act unconstitutional.
Jane Banya approached the court to confirm the Cape Town High Court ruling in her favour on an inheritance claim. She had been the life partner of a wealthy man who died in 2014.
However, she had been prevented from inheriting her partner’s estate because the Intestate Succession Act doesn’t extend the same rights to heterosexual life partners as it does to same-sex couples.
The High Court ruled that the Act is unconstitutional and approved Banya’s claim. It didn’t approve her claim to maintenance under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act.
She has asked the ConCourt to extend these benefits to her as well.
“Mr Stelzman, one of the reasons why the majority in Volks vs Robertsons declined to declare Sec 1 of Maintenance Act unconstitutional was the view that the regulation of life partnerships would best be handled by Parliament and that brings us to the separation of powers issues. Had Parliament adopted the Domestic Partnership Bill which was prepared then the applicant and everyone else in a similar position would not have been in front of this court. The only reason we are here is because Parliament did not do what this court required it to do.”
This interaction between Justice Leona Theron and Senior Council, Robert Stelzman, highlighted one of the thorny issues placed before the Constitutional Court.
“This case is about benefits which are not extended to a survivor of a heterosexual life partnership whereas if the survivor had been of the same sex they would have obtained the benefits under the Intestate Succession Act, under the decision of this court in Loubsche vs Duplan,” says Banya’s advocate, Robert Stelzner.
15 years ago, the Constitutional Court made a ruling which set in motion processes for Parliament to amend the Domestic Partnership legislation to put marriage and committed partnerships on the same level. However, this hasn’t happened yet.
Now Banya wants the court to force Parliament to move on the matter.
“Parliament has simply omitted to do that which the court required it to do 15 years ago, there is a gap and that gap we respectfully submit under Sec 172 must be filled by the courts including this court otherwise the applicant and those in her position will have to wait who knows how long for Parliament to get around to discussing and adopting which the South African law reform commission twice already has spent so much time producing,” adds Stelzner.
The Commission for Gender Equality and the Women’s Legal Centre Trust has been admitted as friends of the court in the case.
The Women’s Legal Centre Trust drew on numerous case studies to show the impact that the Constitutional Court judgment on this matter will have on a range of women. It included women not represented by the applicant’s particular circumstances.
They argued that simply marrying to secure legal protection is not a viable option for many women.
The Gender Commission agreed with the applicant and the Western Cape High Court that the Intestate Succession Act is unconstitutional and that this case is potentially the final step in achieving full and equal protection and recognition of all life partnerships.
The post ConCourt hears arguments to declare Intestate Succession Act unconstitutional appeared first on SABC News – Breaking news, special reports, world, business, sport coverage of all South African current events. Africa’s news leader..
Read more here:: Latest South Africa News
