[30]That it is not always easy to determine ‘what the text is reasonably capable of meaning’ emerges from Daniels v Campbell.[1] In a split decision, the Constitutional Court held that the word ‘spouse’ in the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 can be read to include the surviving partner to a monogamous Muslim marriage. The majority came to this conclusion after distinguishing the position of same-sex partners, who, that Court had previously held,[2] could not be read as being included in statutory references to ‘spouse’. The majority held, per Sachs J, that central to the Court's previous decisions to this effect ‘was a legal finding that it would place an unacceptable degree of strain on the word “spouse” to include within its ambit parties to a same-sex life partnership’.[3] The majority also concluded, per Ngcobo J, that the previous decisions ‘must be understood to hold that the word “spouse” cannot be construed to include persons who are not married.’[4] Moseneke J agreed with the result but considered that the
- ↑ 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC).
- ↑ National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 (2) SA 1 CC) para 25; Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa 2002 (6) SA 1 (CC) para 9.
- ↑ Daniels v Campbell NO 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC) para 33.
- ↑ Daniels para 62.
