https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/5691 2026-05-05T13:56:06Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/31434 Gender equality in customary marriages: Is the deregulation of customary marriages the solution? Bakker, Pieter Although the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (RCMA) contains provisions to ensure equality between the spouses in a customary marriage, the RCMA has serious deficiencies that are detrimental to the weaker party in customary marriages. To rectify the deficiencies in customary marriages and other relationships, the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) are conducting simultaneous investigations into South African marriage law. This article critically discusses the proposals of the SALRC and the DHA to determine whether the proposed legislation will address the current deficiencies in the RCMA. As an alternative to the proposals of the SALRC and the DHA, the deregulation of customary marriages is advanced as a solution to the inequitable position of spouses in customary marriages under the RCMA. 2023-01-01T00:00:00Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/31176 The infringement of the right to bodily integrity where a body part has been seperated from the body Ahmed, Raheel 2023-04-11T00:00:00Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/30711 The influence of reasonableness on determining delictual or tort liability for pure economic loss – comparative conclusions Ahmed, Raheel 2023-11-04T00:00:00Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/30710 The influence of reasonableness in determining delictual or tort liability for emotional distress or mental harm in American and French Law Ahmed, Raheel American and French law, like South African law, recognises claims for emotional or mental harm. Emotional, mental or psychological harm was recognised by the courts only in the nineteenth century and even though the mind and body in a sense are considered as a unit, these types of claims are not on a par with claims for physical bodily injury. Finding delictual or tort liability for emotional, mental or psychological harm has been problematic not only in South Africa but also in the United States of America and France. Even though there are fundamental differences in the law between these jurisdictions, the broader questions the courts face is whether a claimant is entitled to claim, the amount of damages that should be awarded and how to limit liability with this type of claim. Limiting liability for emotional or mental harm is generally the main concern but the courts have found ways of using the elements of a delict or tort, or concepts such as reasonable foreseeability of harm to limit the claims. American, French and South African law recognise claims for emotional, mental or psychological harm sustained by primary and secondary victims. Thus emotional, mental or psychological harm caused directly or indirectly is compensable. In American and French law the concept of reasonableness plays an important role, whether it be implicit or explicit, in determining delictual or tort liability for the emotional or mental harm sustained. In a sense, reasonableness also plays an overarching role in determining liability. The influence of reasonableness in determining delictual or tort liability for psychiatric or psychological harm in English and South African law will be discussed in a forthcoming contribution. In this contribution the focus is on the influence of reasonableness in determining delictual or tort liability for emotional or mental harm in American and French law. 2023-06-13T00:00:00Z