Ngwenyama v Mayelane wedding after customary wedding

17
[25] The amicus curiae drew the attention of the co urt to human rights
instruments pointing to the vulnerability of women generally, and women in
polygamous marriages in particular. Article 16 of C EDAW obliges the country
to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discr imination against women in
all matters relating to marriage and family relatio ns. Similarly, Article 6(b) of
the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Pe ople’s Rights in Africa to
which the country is a signatory obliges state part ies to enact appropriate
national legislative measures to guarantee that the rights of women in
marriage and family, including polygamous marital r elationships are promoted
and protected.
The above human rights instruments support the purp ose of the Act. In my
view, by addressing the relevant clauses of the Act , the issue of equality and
polygamous marriage has been adequately addressed.
Costs
[26`] It is trite that generally, costs follow the result. However in Biowatch 17
the court considered the impact of an award of cost s on litigants wishing to
vindicate their rights under the Bill of Rights whe re the litigation is not frivolous
or vexatious. The rule is that the losing party is not mulcted in costs. The
rights the unsuccessful respondent sought to vindic ate are neither frivolous
nor vexatious. In the circumstances the appropriate approach is to make no
order as to costs.
[27] It remains to mention that I have had the priv ilege to read the
concurring judgment of Ponnan JA and I find nothing different from what I
have already said. It is substantially a repetition of what I have said except for
what is contained in paragraph 5 and 10. For that r eason, I concur in it.
17 Biowatch Trust v Registrar, Genetic Resources & oth ers 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC) at 245C-249E.