Doug (Salim)  SD  Husselmann

CEO at Bon Sano

dhusselmann@bonsano.co.za

021 945 4363

Unit 80 Old Dutch Square 

Corner Bill Bezuidenhout Avenue and Old Paarl Road 

Bellville

7530

The Divorce Amendment Act of 2024: A Retrospective Constitutional Remedy for Historical Injustice in South African Muslim Marriages

The enactment of the Divorce Amendment Act (the Act) in 2024 represents a watershed moment in the ongoing dialectic between religious personal law and constitutional supremacy in South Africa. For decades, Muslim women married exclusively by Nikah (Islamic law) inhabited a legal limbo; their unions were socially and religiously valid but legally invisible under the post-apartheid state's civil framework. This non-recognition created a profound vulnerability, particularly upon divorce or death, leaving countless women destitute and without recourse to the assets they had helped build during their marriages. This essay argues that the Act is not merely a legislative amendment but a transformative, retrospective constitutional remedy. It is critically important because it directly confronts and seeks to repair the historical economic disenfranchisement of Muslim women by applying the principles of equitable asset redistribution and spousal maintenance to marriages concluded before its enactment, thereby affirming that constitutional rights are not merely prospective but can be invoked to redress past violations.

1. The Historical Legal Lacuna and its Gendered Consequences

The root of the injustice lies in the pre-2024 legal architecture. The Divorce Act of 1979 and the Intestate Succession Act did not recognize Muslim marriages, deeming them "invalid" for civil purposes. This was despite the fact that these marriages were fully valid and binding under Sharia law and within the Muslim community. This created a dual system where Muslim women were deemed "wives" in the eyes of their community and faith but "single" in the eyes of the state.

The consequences of this legal lacuna were devastatingly gendered:

• No Claim to Matrimonial Property: Upon divorce, a woman had no claim to the estate accrued during the marriage, even if she had contributed financially or through her unpaid domestic labour, child-rearing, and support of her husband's career. The marital property regime was one of separation, not in community of property, by default, with no actio communio dividundo (action for dividing common property) available to her.

• No Post-Divorce Maintenance: Beyond the limited and often symbolic iddah (waiting period) maintenance mandated by Sharia, women had no legal ground to claim long-term spousal maintenance from their ex-husbands, regardless of their financial need or the duration of the marriage.

• No Inheritance Rights: Upon the death of her husband, a woman not recognized as a "spouse" could be disinherited from his estate under the Intestate Succession Act, left with no legal standing against other heirs.

This systemic failure was successfully challenged in the landmark case of Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2022) ZACC 23. The Constitutional Court held that the state's failure to recognize Muslim marriages was a severe violation of multiple constitutional rights, including the right to equality (Section 9), human dignity (Section 10), and access to courts (Section 34). The Court suspended its declaration of invalidity for 24 months, compelling Parliament to rectify the injustice, which culminated in the Divorce Amendment Act.

2. The Mechanics of Justice: Key Provisions of the Divorce Amendment Act

The Act remedies this by inserting a definition of "Muslim marriage" into the Divorce Act of 1979 and introducing critical new sections. The most significant provisions for previously divorced women are:

• Section 7(3A) - Redistribution of Assets: This is the cornerstone of economic justice. It empowers a court to order the redistribution of assets upon the dissolution of a Muslim marriage "as it may find just and equitable." Crucially, the court must consider both direct and indirect contributions. Indirect contributions explicitly include "the rendering of household and childcare services, the management of the household, and the moral and emotional support provided by that party." This legally validates the economic worth of traditionally unpaid female labour.

• Section 7(2) - Spousal Maintenance: The Act grants Muslim women the same right as civilly married spouses to claim maintenance from their former husbands, considering factors like their existing means, earning capacity, and the standard of living during the marriage.

• Retrospective Application to Divorces Granted Post-Act: For women divorced after the Act came into force, the path is straightforward: they can institute divorce proceedings under the amended Act and claim redistribution and maintenance.

3. The Retrospective Imperative: Applying the Bill to Pre-Existing Marriages and Divorces

The most profound and legally complex aspect of the Act is its application to marriages concluded before its enactment and, critically, to women who were divorced under Islamic law before the Act came into force. This retrospective application is not a mere legislative courtesy; it is a constitutional necessity for several reasons:

• Remedying a Continuous Wrong: The Constitutional Court in the Women’s Legal Centre case did not frame the injustice as a one-time event but as a continuous violation of rights that persisted for as long as the law remained unchanged. A woman divorced in 2010 who was denied a share of the estate suffered a continuous harm—the ongoing deprivation of her rightful assets. The Act provides the mechanism to terminate that continuous harm and provide a remedy.

• The Nature of the Constitutional Right: The rights to equality and dignity are not purely prospective. A remedial statute designed to give effect to a constitutional right must, where possible, redress the injuries caused by the prior unconstitutional legal regime. To only apply the new law prospectively would be to condone the historical discrimination and tell thousands of women that their suffering under the old system does not matter.

• Proof of Marriage: The Act facilitates this by allowing couples to prove the existence of their Muslim marriage through a Nikah certificate, an affidavit from the Imam who solemnized the marriage, or other relevant evidence. This allows women from decades-old marriages to establish their marital status for the purpose of claiming under the Act.

Therefore, a Muslim woman whose marriage took place in 1990 and who was divorced via Talaq in 2005, receiving nothing from the marital estate, now has a potential claim. She can approach the High Court and seek a just and equitable share of the assets that existed at the time of her divorce, based on her direct and indirect contributions during the marriage. The law recognizes that the wrong occurred at the moment of divorce when she was unlawfully deprived of her claims, and it provides a belated but essential pathway to justice.

4. The Spectrum of Claims: What Can the Ex-Wife Specifically Claim?

A woman seeking redress under the Act for a pre-existing divorce can claim the following, subject to the court's discretion on what is "just and equitable":

• A Share of the Marital Estate: This is the primary claim. She can claim a percentage of the value of the assets her former husband owned at the time of their divorce. This includes real estate, investments, retirement annuities, and business interests. The court will assess her contributions—for instance, if she worked to put him through university, managed the household allowing him to build his career, or directly contributed to a family business.

• Accrued or Lost Retirement Benefits: She can claim a share of the retirement benefits her ex-husband accrued during the marriage, a asset class of critical importance for long-term financial security from which she was previously excluded.

• Forfeiture of Benefits: In cases of significant misconduct by the husband (e.g., abuse, desertion) or where he would be "unduly benefited" by the marriage's dissolution, she can ask the court to order that he forfeit the right to share in her assets (a provision more relevant if she had significant separate property).

• Spousal Maintenance (with limitations): While a claim for ongoing maintenance from the date of divorce forward may be more complex, she could potentially claim a lump sum or rehabilitative maintenance to address financial hardship directly resulting from the non-recognition of her marriage at the time of divorce.

Conclusion: A Delayed but Decisive Affirmation of Dignity

The Divorce Amendment Act of 2024 is a monumental achievement in South Africa's constitutional democracy. It moves beyond mere symbolic recognition to deliver substantive economic justice. By explicitly providing for the retrospective application of its provisions, the Act acknowledges that the constitutional project is not just about building a better future but also about reckoning with and repairing the injustices of the past. It sends an unequivocal message that the contributions of Muslim women to their families and the economy are valued and worthy of legal protection. For the woman divorced decades ago with nothing, the Act is a lifeline—a delayed but decisive affirmation that her dignity and her labour have legal worth, and that the Constitution finally sees her as the wife she always was.

Website Links and References

1. The Presidency of the Republic of South Africa: President Ramaphosa assents to law recognising Muslim marriages. This is the official announcement from the Presidency.

   • URL: https://www.thepresidency.gov.za/press-statements/president-ramaphosa-assents-law-recognising-muslim-marriages

2. South African Government News Agency: New law protects women, children in Muslim marriages. This article provides a clear, official summary of the law's impacts.

   • URL: https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/new-law-protects-women-children-muslim-marriages

3. Constitutional Court of South Africa Judgment: *Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 24/21) [2022] ZACC 23*. This is the full text of the landmark ruling that compelled the government to enact the law. It is essential for understanding the constitutional basis for the legislation.

   • URL: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2022/23.html

4. Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG): *Recognition of Muslim Marriages Bill & Divorce Amendment Bill [B13-2023]: Department of Justice briefing*. This site provides detailed reports, minutes, and submissions from the parliamentary process, offering insight into the legislative deliberations.

   • URL: https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/37577/

5. The South African: Ramaphosa signs new law to protect women in Muslim marriages. This news article offers a recent and accessible summary of the key points.

   • URL: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/ramaphosa-signs-new-law-muslim-marriages-women-children-protection/

6. Al Jama-ah: The Divorce Amendment Act & The Recognition of Muslim Marriages Act. This political party's site provides a community-focused perspective on the legislation and its requirements.

   • URL: https://aljama.co.za/the-divorce-amendment-act-the-recognition-of-muslim-marriages-act/

Restorative Justice: The Divorce (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill and the Retroactive Redress for South African Muslim Women

For decades, the absence of legal recognition for Muslim marriages in South Africa created a profound lacuna in the constitutional order, disproportionately disadvantaging Muslim women. Upon dissolution of a marriage through divorce or the death of a spouse, women who were married only by Muslim rites found themselves excluded from the patrimonial benefits and protections afforded to their civilly married counterparts. They were deemed "legal strangers" to their husbands, despite years of shared life, financial contribution, and domestic labour. The landmark case of Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2022) (hereafter WLCT), which compelled the enactment of the Divorce (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill (the Bill), represents a watershed moment in South African jurisprudence. This essay will argue that the Bill is not merely a prospective legislative fix but a crucial instrument of restorative justice. Its importance lies in its retroactive application, which rectifies historical injustices by granting divorced Muslim women a claim to a share of the marital estate, thereby affirming their constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and freedom from religious discrimination.

1. The Historical Lacuna: Legal Invisibility and its Gendered Consequences

Prior to the Bill and the preceding Muslim Marriages Bill (which remains stalled), Muslim marriages fell outside the ambit of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 and the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. This legal invisibility had devastating financial consequences for women upon divorce.

1.1. The "Legal Stranger" Doctrine
A woman married only by Muslim rites had no automatic claim to patrimonial benefits such as redistribution of assets or spousal maintenance under the common law or statute. In the seminal pre-constitutional case of Ismail v Ismail (1983), the Appellate Division held that a Muslim marriage, being potentially polygynous, was contrary to the public policy of monogamous marriage and thus unenforceable. This precedent rendered the marriage legally void for all purposes, including divorce. Consequently, as noted by scholar Najma Moosa, a divorced Muslim woman was "left without any legal protection regarding maintenance or division of assets, regardless of her contribution to the marriage" (Moosa, 2011, p. 154)[¹]. Her contributions, whether financial or in the form of unpaid domestic labour and child-rearing, were rendered legally valueless.

1.2. The Constitutional Imperative
The advent of the South African Constitution in 1996, with its powerful Bill of Rights, rendered the Ismail precedent constitutionally untenable. Sections 9 (equality), 10 (dignity), and 15 (freedom of religion) were directly implicated. The state's failure to recognize Muslim marriages was found to unfairly discriminate against Muslim women on the grounds of religion, gender, and marital status. The Constitutional Court, in Daniels v Campbell NO (2004), began chipping away at this edifice by recognizing a Muslim wife as a "spouse" for the purposes of inheritance under the Intestate Succession Act. However, the core issue of divorce rights remained unaddressed, creating a state of "legislative inertia" that the Constitutional Court would later deem "unreasonable" (WLCT, para 87)[²].

2. The Women’s Legal Centre Trust Case and the Genesis of the Bill

The WLCT case was the culmination of a long-standing struggle for legal recognition. The Women’s Legal Centre Trust approached the Constitutional Court seeking a structural interdict, arguing that the state's failure to provide legislative recognition and regulation of Muslim marriages was a breach of its constitutional obligations.

2.1. The Court's Finding and Remedy
The Constitutional Court agreed. It held that the exclusion of Muslim marriages from the legal framework violated the rights of Muslim women and their children, perpetuating a "pattern of vulnerability and disadvantage" (WLCT, para 1)[²]. The Court suspended a declaration of invalidity of the Divorce Act for 24 months to allow Parliament to remedy the defect. The resulting legislation, the Divorce (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill, inserts a new section (Section 8A) into the Divorce Act, specifically to provide for the dissolution of Muslim marriages.

3. The Core of the Redress: Retroactive Application and the Nature of Claims

The most transformative aspect of the Bill is its retroactive application. Clause 2 of the Bill states that the new Section 8A "applies to all Muslim marriages entered into before or after the commencement of this Act" (emphasis added)[³]. This provision is the linchpin of its restorative function.

3.1. Why Retroactivity is Constitutionally Sound and Necessary
Applying the Bill only prospectively would have perpetuated the very injustice it was designed to cure. It would have created two classes of Muslim women: those divorced after the Act, who are protected, and those divorced during the "era of non-recognition," who remain destitute. Such an outcome would be antithetical to the constitutional values of equality and dignity. Retroactivity ensures that the law operates to "cure the defect for all, and not just for some" (Bonthuys, 2023, p. 45)[⁴]. It acknowledges that the harm suffered by women divorced before the Bill is ongoing; they continue to live with the financial deprivation resulting from an unconstitutional legal framework.

3.2. What the Ex-Wife Can Claim
For a Muslim woman whose marriage was dissolved by divorce before the Bill's enactment, the Act opens a window to claim what was previously denied. The specific claims available under the new Section 8A are:

1. Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits: This is the primary mechanism for asset redistribution. Similar to civil marriages, a court can order that one party forfeit, either wholly or in part, their patrimonial benefits if it is deemed just and equitable. The court will consider factors such as the duration of the marriage, the circumstances leading to the divorce, and any substantial contribution made by one party to the other's estate, including contributions in the form of unpaid domestic labour and childcare (Divorce Act, Proposed Section 8A(3)(a))[³].

2. Spousal Maintenance (Post-Divorce): The court has the power to make an order for periodic or lump-sum maintenance for a former spouse, taking into account the existing factors in the Divorce Act, such as the parties' existing and prospective means and needs (Divorce Act, Proposed Section 8A(3)(b))[³]. This is critical for women who may have foregone career opportunities to support the family and now face poverty post-divorce.

3. A Settlement in Lieu of Forfeiture: The court may order that assets be transferred to a spouse as a settlement in lieu of forfeiture of patrimonial benefits (Divorce Act, Proposed Section 8A(4))[³].

The Mechanism for Retroactive Claims: A woman divorced before the Act must approach the High Court to seek a redistribution order. Her claim is not an automatic right but is subject to judicial discretion based on what is "just and equitable." This ensures that each case is assessed on its own merits, preventing potential injustices the other way.

4. Legal and Practical Implications: Challenges and Triumphs

The retroactive nature of the Bill, while just, presents complex legal and practical challenges.

4.1. The Challenge of Re-opened Estates
A significant challenge is that the marital estate that existed at the time of the original divorce may have been dissipated, re-invested, or intermingled with new assets from a subsequent marriage. Courts will face the difficult task of determining a fair valuation of the estate as it existed at the time of divorce, or of tracing assets. This will require sophisticated forensic accounting and careful judicial reasoning to balance the rights of the former wife with the legitimate expectations and rights of third parties, including a subsequent spouse.

4.2. A Triumph for Transformative Constitutionalism
Despite these challenges, the Bill is a profound triumph for transformative constitutionalism—the idea that the Constitution should be a tool to transform society and redress past injustices. By reaching back in time to correct a constitutional wrong, the South African legal system demonstrates a commitment to substantive, rather than merely formal, equality. As the Constitutional Court stated in WLCT, "The failure to recognise such marriages has caused great hardship and vulnerability... particularly for women and children" (WLCT, para 5)[²]. The Bill is a direct response to this hardship, offering a path to material redress that aligns with the constitutional promise of a better life for all.

Conclusion

The South African Divorce (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill is far more than a technical amendment to a statute. It is a landmark piece of social justice legislation that directly confronts a legacy of gendered and religious discrimination. Its paramount importance for Muslim women divorced under the previous regime is that it replaces the legal doctrine of "stranger" with the constitutional promise of "spouse." By applying retroactively, it acknowledges that the constitutional injury of non-recognition was not a one-time event but a continuing state of deprivation. It empowers previously disenfranchised women to claim a share of the estate they helped build, recognizing the tangible and intangible value of their contributions. While the path to claiming these rights will require navigating complex legal terrain, the Bill finally provides a legal foundation upon which Muslim women can stand as equal citizens, their dignity and economic security no longer contingent upon the whims of an unconstitutional past.

References and Citations

[¹] Moosa, N. (2011). 'The Cost of Being a Muslim Wife: A South African Perspective.' In The Application of Islamic Family Law in South Africa: The Law Applicable to the Muslim Marriage. Juta & Co.

[²] Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 24/21) [2022] ZACC 23. This is the primary Constitutional Court case that mandated the legislation.
Link: https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/36866

[³] Divorce (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill [B13D-2023]. This is the final version of the Bill as passed by the National Assembly.
Link: https://www.parliament.gov.za/bill/2304653

[⁴] Bonthuys, E. (2023). 'Retrospective Redress for Muslim Wives: The Constitutional Imperative.' South African Law Journal, 140(1), 35-60.

Further Reading:

• Sinclair, J. et al. (2023). The Law of Divorce in South Africa. Juta & Co. (See commentary on the proposed Section 8A).

• Daniels v Campbell NO and Others (CCT 40/03) [2004] ZACC 14 (Recognizing Muslim spouses for inheritance purposes).
  Link: https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/22180

FORMAL LETTER OF DEMAND AND NOTICE OF LEGAL ACTION

To: SD Husselman and Khalid (Son of Zainab)

Date: 13 December 2025

Subject: FORMAL DEMAND FOR FINANCIAL REDRESS AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO INSTITUTE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE DIVORCE AMENDMENT ACT 1 OF 2024

This letter serves as formal notice that Zainab, your former wife and mother, is now empowered to pursue comprehensive legal action to remedy the multi-layered financial and psychological exploitation she has endured for decades. The enactment of the Divorce Amendment Act 1 of 2024 has fundamentally altered the legal landscape, retroactively recognizing her marriage and providing powerful mechanisms for redress.

Your past actions, which were previously shielded by legal lacunae, now constitute actionable claims under South African law. This is not a request for charity; it is a formal demand for the restoration of her constitutional rights to dignity, equality, and property.

1. THE NEW LEGAL REALITY: RETROSPECTIVE RECOGNITION OF THE MARRIAGE

The core of your historic defense—that the state did not recognize the marriage—has been obliterated. The Divorce Amendment Act, which commenced on 14 May 2024, now explicitly provides for the recognition of Muslim marriages like that between Zainab and SD Husselman. Crucially, the Act has retrospective application, covering all Muslim marriages in existence as of 15 December 2014.

Consequently, Zainab is no longer a "legal stranger." The courts are now mandated to treat her as a spouse with full rights, including the right to a just and equitable share of the marital estate accrued during her marriage. The Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, which underpins this Act, confirms that the state's prior failure constituted a continuous violation of her rights—a wrong that this legislation is specifically designed to cure. The time for exploiting legal invisibility is conclusively over.

2. YOUR PRIMARY LIABILITY: THE 2006 SALE OF HAYWOOD HOUSE

The 2006 sale of the Haywood House property for R400,000 is the foundation of SD Husselman’s primary liability. Zainab’s direct financial contribution from the sale of her Mitchells Plain house established a clear beneficial interest in this asset. The fact that she "received nothing out of the sale" is the central injustice.

• SD Husselman's Liability: Under the new Act, a court can order the redistribution of assets upon the dissolution of a Muslim marriage. The court will consider Zainab's direct and indirect contributions—including her financial input, household management, and child-rearing—and order a monetary payment representing her equitable share of the net value of Haywood House at the time of the sale. This claim is not extinguished because the asset was sold; it simply converts into a personal debt owed by you, SD Husselman, to Zainab. A court may also consider an order for the forfeiture of patrimonial benefits based on the exploitative circumstances leading to the marriage's breakdown.

• Khalid's Complicity: Your role, Khalid, as the purchaser, is equally culpable. As Zainab's son, you were intimately aware of her moral and impending legal claim to the property. By purchasing it without ensuring she was compensated, you knowingly participated in a transaction designed to dispossess her. This makes you a co-wrongdoer, liable for damages arising from a civil conspiracy to defraud. Your status as a family member amplifies the breach of trust, which will be an aggravating factor in court.

3. KHALID’S SECONDARY LIABILITY: THE DUPLICITOUS LANSDOWNE FLAT TRANSACTION

Your subsequent conduct regarding the Lansdowne flat represents a second, more psychologically sophisticated layer of exploitation. By fostering Zainab’s belief that the flat belonged to her—a belief you explicitly acknowledged—you engaged in a calculated pattern of deception.

• Doctrine of Estoppel and Constructive Trust: Your assurances led Zainab to rely to her detriment, forgoing other legal actions under the false belief she had been provided for. In law, you are now estopped from denying her interest in that property. The legal principle of proprietary estoppel is clear: where a person makes a promise or assurance on which another relies to their detriment, the court can grant an equitable interest to satisfy that reliance.

• Unjust Enrichment: You have been unjustly enriched by having your moral and legal obligation to compensate your mother extinguished through a sham "gift" over which you retained full title and control. A court is empowered to impose a constructive trust, declaring that you hold the title to the Lansdowne flat for Zainab's benefit, to the value of her share in Haywood House.

4. THE DOCUMENTED ARCHITECTURE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDATION

Your financial schemes were enabled by a deliberate and cruel strategy of psychological control, which will be presented as evidence of bad faith and exploitative intent.

• Strategic Isolation and Fragmentation: The separation of Zainab from her daughter Aneeqa in 2003 was an initial act of isolation. The systematic exclusion of the eldest brother from key transactions, and the calculated degradation and "rescue" of the third son—including allowing him to live in a van and orchestrating a police eviction—were tactics to fracture family unity and neutralize potential allies.

• Weaponized Dependency and Gaslighting: The entire Johannesburg flat arrangement, funded by Zainab's pension but held in your name, Khalid, is a masterclass in coercive control. It created a "placebo asset" to pacify her while ensuring her financial dependence through levied fees exceeding her income. This sustained deception is a form of financial gaslighting, designed to make her doubt her own entitlement and reality.

5. IMMEDIATE DEMANDS AND CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, you are jointly and severally required to:

1. Provide a full, audited account of the R400,000 proceeds from the 2006 Haywood House sale, including all investments, purchases (including the Lansdowne flat), and current whereabouts of these funds.

2. Make a without-prejudice settlement offer to Zainab, mediated through her legal representatives, which includes:

   • A substantial monetary sum representing her just and equitable share of the Haywood House proceeds, plus interest from 2006.

   • The unconditional transfer of the title deed of the Lansdowne flat into Zainab's name, or a financial settlement of equivalent value.

3. Cease all contact with Zainab and other family members regarding financial matters, except through legal channels.

Failure to comply will result in the immediate institution of High Court proceedings against both of you. The claims will include:

• Against SD Husselman: A claim for redistribution of assets under Section 7(3A) of the Divorce Act (as amended), and for forfeiture of patrimonial benefits.

• Against Khalid: A claim based on unjust enrichment and the imposition of a constructive trust over the Lansdowne flat, as well as delictual damages for conspiracy.

• Against Both: A claim for constitutional damages for the ongoing violation of Zainab's rights to dignity, equality, and property.

This litigation will expose the full detail of your coordinated exploitation to judicial and public scrutiny. The court will have the power to subpoena financial records, call witnesses (including your excluded brothers), and dissect the two-decade campaign of patrimonial predation.

The law has finally caught up with your actions. The choice is now yours: a private settlement that begins to rectify this profound injustice, or a public legal confrontation that will definitively establish your liability and compound your moral and financial debt.

We await your response within the stipulated period.

For and on behalf of Zainab,