Page:Fourie v Minister of Home Affairs (HC).djvu/2

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
17280/02-CT
2
Judgment

second Respondents. I quote the relevant prayers in the notice of motion.

“2. Dat 'n verklarende bevel verleen word dat die huwelik tussen eerste en tweede Applikante erken word as 'n regsgeldige huwelik in terme van die bepalings van die Huwelikswet 25 van 1961 op voorwarde dat sodanige huwelik voldoen aan die formaliteite soos uiteengesit in die Huwelikswet 25 van 1961.
3. Dat die eerste en tweede Verweerders gelas word om die huwelik van eerste en tweede respondente te registreer in terme van die bepalings van die Huwelikswet 25 van 1061 en die Wet op Identifikasie 1968 van 97.”

I must emphasize that no attempt was made to amend these prayers. This despite airing my view on how appropriate this relief could be in light of the facts and the Statute to which I will refer later.

Purporting to the act in terms of Uniform Rule 16A a voluntary society, “The Lesbian and Gay Equality Project”, intervenes as amicus curiae and addressed me at length. The relevant provisions of the rule are:

“16A(1)(a) Any person raising a constitutional issue in an application or action, shall give notice thereof to the Registrar at the time of filing the relevant affidavit or pleading. Such notice shall contain a clear and succinct description of the constitutional issue concerned.”

I do not quote the balance of the rule but record that it was hardly