key to the study guide - Name

Provisions of section
7(4)
``Ordinary'' duties
of housewife =
contribution
Contribution =
positive act
Contribution need
notbeofmonetary
nature
38 of 1927 or where they entered into a marriage abroad and complete
separation of property was applicable to their marriage as a result of the
operation of the law. You only need to read this discussion.
3 THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A REDISTRIBUTION ORDER
Once the prerequisites for the granting of a redistribution order have been
met, the court will grant such an order only if the two requirements, which
are mentioned and briefly discussed on page 137 of the textbook, have
been met.
3.1 The nature of the contribution to the maintenance or increase of the
other spouse's estate
Section 7(4) prescribes how the contribution to the maintenance or
increase of the other spouse's estate may be made. You must ensure that
you know the provisions of section 7(4) as set out on page 137 of your
textbook.
Further you will see on page 137 of the textbook that in Beaumont v
Beaumont the appellate division (now the supreme court of appeal) held
that the wording of section 7(4) is wide enough to cover the performance
of the ``ordinary'' duties of a housewife. You must also take note of the
second-last paragraph of the note on the Beaumont case on page 230 in
your casebook.
The next case discussed in your textbook on pages 137±138 is Kritzinger v
Kritzinger. In this case the appellate division stated that, normally, only a
positive act constitutes a contribution. Merely to refrain from action
therefore does not qualify as a contribution to the growth or maintenance
of the other spouse's estate. Here you should also note the fourth
paragraph of the note on the Kritzinger case on page 238 in your casebook.
Thirdly, in respect of the nature of the contribution, you must note the
decision in Katz v Katz where the appellate division made it clear that the
contribution need not be of such a nature that a monetary value can be
placed upon it. You will further see in the note on the Katz case in your
casebook on page 244 that it is not necessary for the person applying for
the order to prove that his or her contribution entailed more than a
contribution to his or her own maintenance.
Finally, note that the applicant need not have made a contribution to
spesific assets for those assets to be taken into accounts.
181