This Wedding Season: What’s in a Surname?

by | Family Law

“That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” (Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet)

Your wedding to-do list will be a long one, and getting all the “boring legal bits” in order before you marry may not seem like a huge priority. But it is. Choices you make now will affect both of you (and your families) forever.

One of those choices is what surname/s you want to adopt in your marriage. We’ll discuss your options below. And although they’re currently available only to women, there’s good news on that front – a recent High Court decision has set the stage for men to be given the same choices as women.

What’s the current position?

In terms of our Births and Deaths Registration Act, as a man you can only change your surname by application to the DHA (the Department of Home Affairs) but as a woman you can automatically:

  1. Take your husband’s surname, or
  2. Revert to or retain your maiden surname or any other prior surname, or
  3. Join your surname with your husband’s as a double-barreled surname.

Those choices are of course a huge improvement on the old default position of wives automatically having to take their husband’s surnames. But there’s still inherent inequality in the law: while women have these choices as of right, a man still has to apply to the DHA for authority to change his surname. Worse still, he must give a “good and sufficient reason” for his application, and the applicable regulations say that in this context your reason “must relate to a change in the marital status of a woman”. These regulations have previously been declared invalid as “ultra vires” (made without authority) but they are very specific in excluding men from the equation.

Two couples challenge the status quo – and win

The groundbreaking High Court decision stems from the resolve of two couples to challenge that remnant of gender inequality:

  1. J… and H… (their full names aren’t used in the judgment to respect their privacy) wanted to use J’s birth surname as it symbolized her connection to her parents who died when she was four. H pledged his unwavering support for her stance and wanted her surname to be their family name in which their children would be raised. The DHA agreed that J could retain her surname but said it was unable to allow H to adopt the same name.
  2. Jess and Andreas (their names were included in the judgment) decided that, because Jess is an only child whose maiden surname is important to her, they would both combine their surnames into a hyphenated surname. They wanted their names to be the same and to reflect their familial unit. It was only when the time came to complete their marriage certificate that they realised only Jess could go the double-barrel route. The DHA again said they couldn’t do the same for Andreas.

In a joint application, the couples asked the High Court to declare that the relevant sections of the Act and regulations are unconstitutional. Our Constitution states, after all, that the right to equality includes full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms, with the State being prohibited from unfairly discriminating directly or indirectly against anyone based on, among other things, gender or marital status. They argued that that “the Act has retained an archaic and patriarchal default position that only women are entitled, as of right, to assume a different surname.”

The Court with little ado issued the order of unconstitutionality, giving parliament two years to remedy this and ordering that in the interim men will have the same rights as women to change their surnames and to resume previous surnames on marriage, divorce or the death of a spouse. It also specifically ordered the DHA to amend these two couples’ surnames as requested.

Now it’s over to the Constitutional Court, then on to parliament

The order of unconstitutionality only comes into force as and when confirmed by the Constitutional Court so for now unfortunately your choices remain limited as above.

Whatever you settle on, before making your final decision you might want to ask us about the legal consequences. Then tell the marriage officer upfront what your choice is so that your marriage certificate, marriage register and National Population Register all reflect your married names correctly.

If you need assistance with this, or any other legal aspect of marriage, please contact us. (But please don’t ask us for help with the flowers!)

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

More Articles

Renegotiating After You’ve Signed: The Email That Ended a Property Sale

Renegotiating After You’ve Signed: The Email That Ended a Property Sale

After their bond was withdrawn, the buyers were given time to arrange new finance. Instead, one of them emailed the conveyancer saying they would only apply for another bond after the seller repaired an alleged defect or agreed to reduce the price. The seller understood this to mean that the buyers would not proceed on the terms they had already accepted. She cancelled the sale, and the High Court agreed that she was entitled to do so. The buyers lost the sale and the money already paid and faced further financial consequences.

Was it Even His Signature? How to Overturn a Fraudulent Will

Was it Even His Signature? How to Overturn a Fraudulent Will

It’s unfortunately all too common a tale. Out of the blue, an older person, rendered vulnerable by age or illness, acquires a new “friend”. Before anyone in the family realises what’s going on, their loved one has died, and the fraudster claims to be sole heir in terms of a last-minute will. No surprise then that our courts must often determine whether a deceased person’s last will was tainted by incapacity, undue influence, fraud, or even forgery. The sad tale of a 90-year-old man who left behind two conflicting wills is a good example of how our courts approach these situations.

Employ a Foreign National? What You Must Check Now, and What Could Change

Employ a Foreign National? What You Must Check Now, and What Could Change

Under the current law, it is already illegal to employ someone who is not legally entitled to work in South Africa. This applies to businesses and to households employing foreign domestic workers, nannies or gardeners. A new Bill proposes additional duties and higher penalties for employers, but these changes are not yet law. Employers should therefore comply with the existing law and remain alert to the proposed changes.