• gender-based violence;
• harassment;
• discrimination;
• equality in the workplace;
• customary and religious laws;
• access to land and housing.

The Project seeks creative and effective solutions to achieve its aims. These include using a range of strategies including impact litigation, law reform initiatives, participation in development processes, education and networking within and outside of South Africa. Through strategic litigation, the Project has been instrumental in developing a strong jurisprudence of substantive gender equality.

The Project has recently been involved in matters, which resulted in the following key decisions:

S v Engelbrecht 2005 (2) SACR 41 (WLD); where the Project assisted the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) as amicus curiae presenting important written and oral arguments concerning the effects of so-called Battered Woman Syndrome on victims of Domestic Violence.

Bhe and Others v Magistrate Khayelitsha and Others; Shibi v Sithole and Others; South African Human Rights Commission v President of the Republic of South Africa 2005 (1) BCLR 1 (CC); where the Project assisted the second applicant in challenging the rule of male primogeniture as it applies in African customary law of succession.

Omar v Government, RSA and Others 2006 (2) BCLR 253 (CC); where the project assisted a victim of domestic violence, whose abusive husband challenged the constitutionality of provisions of the Domestic Violence Act that allowed for his arrest. The challenge was successfully averted.

Singh v Ramparsad and Others: In 1987 our client, Ms Suchrita Singh (the plaintiff) and Mr Jailall Ramparsad (1st defendant) entered into a marriage according to Hindu customary law and practice. For the duration of the marriage, Mr Ramparsad steadfastly refused to consent to a civil law ceremony. After 13 years the couple permanently ceased living together as man and wife. Ms Singh was subsequently evicted from the marital home. Mr Ramparsad claimed that he was not “legally” married to her, denying her any recognition of her marital status or to the rights emanating from a marriage. The end of the marriage was preceded by physical and emotional abuse, intimidation from pursuing her career and studies and the insistence that plaintiff submit to an abortion performed by 1st defendant. The marriage stands irretrievable with no prospect of restoration between the parties.  As a consequence of the 1st Defendant’s abuse, Plaintiff was unable to advance her career or establish a means of support, while the 1st Defendant maintained and enhanced his career. 

The legal challenge stems from the 1st defendant’s denial of the validity of the marriage and the consequent patrimonial obligations under South African law regarding dissolution of the marital estate.  This denial and failure to negotiate or settle the claim in good faith left the plaintiff with no legal recourse, as marriages performed under the tenets of Hindu custom and religion are not recognised by SA law, due to a lacunae in the law.

The claim hinged on legal recognition of the validity of the marriage and the determination of the marital regime to establish patrimonial consequences.
The intervention of the Legal Resources Centre arose out of the detection and recognition of this trend whereby the women in such marriages had over a period of time, presented themselves for legal assistance as maintenance cases or claimants to contested deceased estates, or as first wives after their husbands had married again according to civil law requirements. It was necessary to establish a precedent that would assist in providing certainty to the legal status of parties to such marriages and the consequences that arise out of such marriages, without piecemeal individual litigation.  
The facts of this case could sustain a test case seeking the extension of the definition of “marriage” in the Marriage Act and the Divorce Act, thus enabling a formal dissolution of the marriage with the usual proprietary consequences.

An audit of reported cases on the issue, reveal that while courts have been asked to adjudicate the consequences of religious marriages, there are no reported decisions of a litigant asking the court to define her legal marital status. Hence the courts have determined disputes arising out of deceased estates, pension benefits, evidence in criminal trials, maintenance and tax avoidance etc. This case is distinguishable, since the adjudication of the legal status of the marriage is not an adjunct dispute, but rather the primary relief being sought by the parties. This increases its potential of establishing a precedent by litigation, since the court is being asked to define and rule on the issue.

This case challenges the constitutional interpretation of the Marriage and the Divorce Act for women married under religious custom or in non-civil settings. It also challenges the judicial interpretation of “marriage” and the judicial treatment of the parties to such marriages. The objective is to set a precedent for the protection of women’s rights under Sections 9(1), 9(3), 10, 15(3), 39(1)(a) and 39(2) of the Constitution. A correct interpretation of these rights and the provisions of the Marriage Act will accord the marriage validity in law and place it within the framework of the relevant legislation. Our research and evidence to date support our contention. The fact that a marriage is solemnised according to religious custom should not detract from the overarching constitutional protections provided to all South African citizens.

This case is in the public interest because it concerns the rights of women of all major faiths seeking protection under the law for failure to accord them their correct marital status and the consequent rights and obligations as South African citizens – protection which they are not at present entitled to challenge and claim.  If successful, this case will set a judicial precedent by recognising their marriage under religious custom and extending to them rights that their civil marriage counterparts are already afforded.
The matter has been accorded a 5 day trial period in the Durban High Court. See our heads of argument in this regard under our judgements page.

Pillay and Nadar V Regional Court Magistrate, Pietermaritzburg and Others heard 30 June 2006: A patient revealed to her psychologist that she was raped. The rape was reported. At the trial the psychologist submitted a detailed report. The report divulged information about the sessions in which the alleged rape was revealed. The accused denied the allegation and applied to the Pietermaritzburg Regional Court for an order compelling the psychologist to hand over her notes taken during the therapeutic sessions and her appointment book. This order was granted.

We brought an application for the admittance of the Centre of Violence and Reconciliation as amicus curiae in the proceedings with regards to psychologist-patient privilege. Compelling a therapist to disclose information obtained during the course of confidential rape counseling militates against public interest. It violates the relationship of trust between patient and psychologist; exposes the rape survivor to secondary abuse and further infringes on the victims right to privacy and dignity. Read the outcome of this matter under our articles section. The full judgment will be available once and electronic version is posted on the high court site.

Read these and other significant judgments on our Judgments page

Although significant gains have been made over the past few years, substantial gender inequalities remain in our society. The Women’s Rights Project recognizes these discrepancies and seeks innovative ways to ensure the protection of women’s fundamental rights. The project will therefore continue to empower women by providing free legal advice and, if necessary, effective legal representation.