The Constitutional Court will deliver judgement on whether section 26(1)(a) to (c) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act unfairly limits a man’s right to assume his wife’s surname after marriage.
The application comes from two couples: Jana Jordaan and Henry Van Der Merwe, and Jess Donnelly-Bornman and Andreas Nicolaas Bornman. Their challenge to the statute reached the apex court after oral hearings earlier this year.
At the centre of the dispute is the Act’s unequal treatment of spouses.
Van Der Merwe says officials refused his request to adopt his wife’s surname, while Bornman was denied permission to hyphenate his surname to include his wife’s name. (SABC News)
The applicants argued that these limits are rooted in outdated assumptions about gender roles.
Bloemfontein High Court agreed with the applicants, declaring the specified provisions of the Act unconstitutional and ordering Home Affairs to correct affected records pending legislative change. That ruling is the order the applicants ask the ConCourt to confirm.
EWN reports that ministers of Home Affairs and of Justice and Constitutional Development indicated they do not intend to oppose the confirmation application, leaving the court to weigh constitutional principle against parliamentary sovereignty and administrative practice.
The outcome could require Parliament or the department to rework regulations and administrative processes that have been in place for decades. (rhkattorneys.co.za)
For many involved, the case is about more than forms and identity documents. Jordaan has described her surname as a link to family memories, illustrating how personal identity and public law can collide in very human ways.
Whatever the judgement, it will shape how South Africans formalise family identities in the years ahead.
First published on Cape {town} etc
Words compiled by: Angelica Rhoda
Also see: Charlie Kirk’s assassination raises questions regarding USA hosting 2026 World Cup
