South Africa Laws

On 13 December 2007, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act amended the legal age of consent for males and females, both heterosexual and homosexual, to a uniform 16 years old [L1.3], [R1.2].

Previously:

Same-sex consensual sex between same-sex couples was lawful for gay men and lesbian aged 19 years. Opposite-sex sexual activity was lawful at age 16 [R1.1].

On 26 November 2008, the Constitutional Court declared that the unequal ages of consent in sections 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) of the erstwhile Sexual Offences Act were unconsitutional [C2.1].

On 20 May 2014, the South African National Blood Service unveiled a new blood donation policy favouring people in stable monogamous relationships for more than six months. All people – regardless of gender or sexual orientation – will be banned from giving blood for six months after having sex with a new partner, and anyone with multiple sexual partners will remains banned from doing so [R1.1].

In November 1997, Health Minister Nkosazana Zuma announced changes to the Human Tissue Act, approving artificial insemination of single women, including lesbians [R1.1].

On 17 November 2017, High Court Judge Ronel Tolmay refused to confirm the surrogacy motherhood agreement entered into by same-sex couple CJD and HN, because they did not live together and one of the men did not want his sexual orientation to become public, finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be born from the surrogacy agreement [C2.8], [R2.7].

On 29 November 2016, the Constitutional Court ruled that at least one parent must donate sperm or eggs for a surrogacy agreement to be legal in South Africa [C2.6], [R2.5].

On 26 March 2015, Judge D H Gush in the Labour Court of South Africa, Durban ruled that “M I A” was discriminated against by the State Information Technology Agency refusing to give him the full customary four months of paid leave, arguing that maternity leave applied only to women who had recently given birth. MIA was married in a civil union in 2010. He entered a surrogacy agreement a year later and applied for leave in anticipation of the birth of the child in 2012 [C2.4], [R2.3].

In March 2003, the Constitutional Court ruled that part of the law regarding the status of children is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The judgment deals with the status of children conceived by artificial insemination to same sex permanent life partners [R2.2].

Justice Goldstone said that a section of the Children’s Status Acts permiting heterosexual married couples to both become the legal parents of children born through artificial insemination but not extending that same right to same-sex permanent partners was discrimination is based solely on the sexual orientation of the couple and cannot be justified.

In November 2002, the Durban High Court ruled that a local lesbian couple be recognised as their twins’ parents [R2.1].

One partner was the genetic parent, having donated eggs, whilst the other partner was the birth mother [R2.1].

On 28 March 2019, it was reported that young gay man Anold Mulaisho, who left a well-paid government job and fled from Zambia because of his sexual orientation, has been denied refugee status by the South African Department of Home Affairs, his application for asylum allegedly being rejected on various spurious grounds (see report) [R1.2].

On 07 September 2018 , it was reported that the Department of Home Affairs issued a visa on 30 August 2018 to civil union partners US citizen Wendy Kessman and South African Nomfundo Ngidi, following an August order of the High Court in Johannesburg. The couple entered into a civil union in January 2017. Since Kessman’s tourist visa expired in March 2017, she has been unable to leave South Africa, legally work or study, open a bank account and drive and the visa issued does not allow Kessman to work or study in South Africa. The couple’s lawyers will apply for a rectification of the visa [R1.1].

On 02 December 1999, the Constitutional Court ruled that foreign partners of South African homosexuals and lesbians should enjoy the same protection as heterosexual couples [R2.3].

As a result foreign gays and lesbians involved in long-term relationships with South Africans are now able to apply for permanent residence.

In August 1999, the Constitutional Court reserved judgment in a case contesting the constitutionality of denying residency to gay foreigners in permanent relationships with South African partners [R2.2].

In February 1999, the Cape High Court ruled that lesbians and gay men and their immigrant partners should be free to live together as family, finding that the Aliens Control Act unfairly discriminates against lesbian and gay couples by denying them the same rights that married couples have under the Act [R2.1].

On 03 June 2016, it was reported that the Advertising Standards Authority dismissed complaints about a We The Brave campaign advert encouraging gay men to practise safe sex. The complaint was made by two women and three men who ”expressed their discontent at the fact that same-sex relationships are being promoted on television without the possibility of shielding their children” [C1.2], [R1.1].

On 17 November 2017, High Court Judge Ronel Tolmay refused to confirm the surrogacy motherhood agreement entered into by same-sex couple CJD and HN, because they did not live together and one of the men did not want his sexual orientation to become public, finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be born from the surrogacy agreement [C1.3], [R1.2].

In August 2000, in a landmark ruling, the Pretoria High Court [single judge] has ordered that a 17-year-old schoolgirl be removed from the care of her heterosexual father and placed in the care of her lesbian mother [R1.1].

In setting aside a 1993 order, Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann said he felt the ruling could have been unconstitutional in the light of the provisions of the Constitution that homosexuals may not be discriminated against and that such people may not be stigmatised.

On 07 September 2018 , it was reported that the Department of Home Affairs issued a visa on 30 August 2018 to civil union partners US citizen Wendy Kessman and South African Nomfundo Ngidi, following an August order of the High Court in Johannesburg. The couple entered into a civil union in January 2017. Since Kessman’s tourist visa expired in March 2017, she has been unable to leave South Africa, legally work or study, open a bank account and drive and the visa issued does not allow Kessman to work or study in South Africa. The couple’s lawyers will apply for a rectification of the visa. [R1.9].

On 30 April 2018, a private member’s bill was reportedly introduced to repeal Section 6 of the Civil Union Act 17 of 2006, which allows a marriage officer in the employ of the state to inform the minister of home affairs that he or she objects on the grounds of conscience, religion and belief to solemnising a civil union between people of the same sex – and to be exempted from officiating [R1.8].

On 27 December 2015, YOU published an article setting out the legal rights of unmarried partners, registered relationships, Wills and death of a partner, registration requirements and answering important questions about civil unions [R1.7].

On 30 November 2006, the Civil Union Act, 2006 was signed into law by the President. Clause 6 of the Act permits home affairs officials to recuse themselves from performing marriage ceremonies on religious and other grounds [L1.6].

On 24 August 2006, South Africa was due to become Africa’s first country to legalise gay partnerships following the government’s approval yesterday of a bill on civil unions [R1.5].

In June 2003, gay couples and permanent partners became entitled to pensions from the government employee pension fund after changes to regulations which discriminated against them [R1.4].

In January 2002, same-sex partners of members of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) were set to have the same benefits as the spouses of the country’s soldiers, sailors and air force members [R1.3].

Regulations amending the definition of “marital status” and “spouse” to include partners in permanent life partnerships have been published in the Government Gazette.

On 21 September 2001, the draft Judicial Officers Amendment Bill to ensure that the benefits received by the spouses of deceased judges were also received by the partners of judges in permanent heterosexual or same sex relationships was tabled in parliament [R1.2].

In November 2000, Under the newly-passed Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, the Estate Duties Act redefines “spouse” to include “a permanent same-sex life relationship”, giving gay and lesbian couples a spousal exemption from inheritance taxes. The change is retroactive to 27 April 1994 [R1.1].

On 24 March 2011, the Supreme Court of Appeal in McDonald v. Young found that unmarried parties would be a need to have a written contract which laid out explicitly who had claims to what type of support, who owned the property and how, if at all it would be split if the happy home fell apart [C2.9], [R2.8].

In August 2003, the Appeal Court was to decide August 2003 on a unique case that a gay man from Pretoria instituted against the Road Accidents Fund, claiming for the loss of the financial support from his “spouse”, who was negligently killed in a motorcycle accident [R2.7].

In September 2001, Judge Frans Kgomo ruled in favour of Johannesburg High Court Judge Cathy Satchwell who sought to have sections of the Judges Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act and regulations in respect of transport, travelling and subsistence declared unconstitutional [R2.4].

In March 2003, the ruling was upheld by the full bench of the Constitutional Court [R2.6], [R2.5].

The right had already been established in private pensions by way of the decision of the Pension Funds Adjudicator in the matter of Martin v Beka Provident Fund and the Pension Funds Act of 1999 [R2.3].

In 1999, the Constitutional Court ruled that foreign partners of South African homosexuals and lesbians should enjoy the same protection as heterosexual couples [R2.6].

As a result foreign gays and lesbians involved in long-term relationships with South Africans are now able to apply for permanent residence.

In February 1998, the High Court ruled that an attempt by the police medical insurance scheme to refuse medical cover to the partner of a homosexual officer was illegal [R2.2].

In June 1997, Phillip van Rensburg was suing his wealthy lover, Hugo Ehlers, for half his fortune after their 13-year relationship terminated [R2.1].

On 26 January 2000, parliament passed a bill that bans discrimination based on race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth [R1.4].

In November 1999, the draft Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Bill stirred controversy during a week of public hearings in parliament. The proposed legislation bans all forms of discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, science, belief, culture, language and birth. Equality courts will be set up and people accused of discrimination will have to prove their innocence [R1.3].

On 11 December 1996, President Nelson Mandela singed the new Constitution into law. The Constitution is regarded as one of the most liberal in the world and by Chapter 2 – Bill of Rights specifically decrees that “The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation (emphasis added), age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, and birth” [R1.2].

Effective 08 May 1996, the South African Bill of Rights protects lesbians, gay men and bisexual people from discrimination by both the State and private sector [R1.1].

On 13 March 2017, Seshego Equality Court in Limpopo reportedly ruled that a high school principal had made hurtful and harmful speech remarks towards a transgender learner in contravention of Section 10 of the Equality Act. The court will make a decision on the relief sought on Friday [R2.9].

On 26 January 2017, it was reported that Mia Agrela and her partner were taking the Lake Restaurant in Brakpan to the Equality Court for violating their right by refusing to accommodate them. The couple booked for date night late last year and after paying the admission fee, they were shocked to receive an SMS saying no same-sex couples are allowed to take part in the romantic evening which promised candle light, a seven-course meal and live performance. The admission fee was refunded however the couple are challenging the restaruant’s policy as discriminatory [R2.8].

On 24 November 2015, in dismissing the appeal of former church minister Ecclesia de Lange seeking to set aside an arbitration agreement with the Methodist Church of Southern Africa that followed her suspension and and discontinuance as an active minister in 2010, for breaching church policy, after announcing her intended marriage to her then same-sex partner, the Constitutional Court ruled she had not shown good cause to set the arbitration agreement aside. It also ruled that she was not free to raise the claim of unfair discrimination for the first time on appeal [C2.7], [R2.6].

On 16 April 2015, the Equality Court ruled that LGBTI people cannot be discriminated against in public services. Neil Coulson and his husband Jonathan Sedgwick had tried to get a room at the Wolseley guesthouse in Cape Town in November 2013 however, owners Marina and Seth Neethling told them the establishment was not ‘gay friendly’ [R2.5].

On 26 March 2015, Judge D H Gush in the Labour Court of South Africa, Durban ruled that “M I A” was discriminated against by the State Information Technology Agency refusing to give him the full customary four months of paid leave, arguing that maternity leave applied only to women who had recently given birth. MIA was married in a civil union in 2010. He entered a surrogacy agreement a year later and applied for leave in anticipation of the birth of the child in 2012 [C2.4], [R2.3].

On 29 September 2014, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa dismissed the appeal of Reverend Ecclesia de Lange against her being “discontinued” after announcing her same-sex marriage from the pulpit. The Court said that a proper respect for freedom of religion precludes our courts from pronouncing on matters of religious doctrine, which fall within the exclusive realm of the Church [C2.2], [R2.1].

On 30 November 2016, the Constitutional Court preserved the right of unmarried permanent gay couples to inheritance, ruling that Eric Duplan was right to claim the intestate estate (no Will) of his deceased live-in partner Cornelius Daniel Laubscher [C1.11], [R1.10].

On 04 November 2016, Judge of Appeal X M Petse for the Supreme Court of Appeal ordered that the divorcing parties Galefele Hilda Ndaba and James Ndaba have a mutual right to their respective pension interests as part of settling property matters between them. Same-sex marriage being lawful, this opposite-sex divorce case may have relevance to same-sex partners divorcing in similar circumstances [C1.9], [R1.8].

On 18 August 2016, the Constitutional Court was reported to be considering the matter of Laubscher N.O v Duplan and Another concerning ”intestate succession in the case of a same-sex partnership”. Duplan was in a same-sex partnership with the deceased from 2003 and the partners had undertaken reciprocal duties of support however, the partnership was never solemnised and registered in terms of the Civil Union Act 17 of 2006, it being contended that the Act displaced the decision in Gory [R1.7].

On 23 November 2006, the Consitutional Court upheld the finding of the Pretoria High Court in Mark Gory v. Daniel Gerhardus Kolver No declaring section 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 (the Act) to be unconstitutional in so far as it does not provide for a permanent same-sex life partner to inherit automatically, as a spouse would, when the other partner dies without a will, reading in after the word ”spouse”, wherever it appears in that section, of the words ”or partner in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken reciprocal duties of support” [C1.6].

In October 2006, subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court, the High Court of South Africa ruled that the Intestate Succession Act No 81 of 1987 was inconsistent with the Constitution and that an extension of the definition of the word ‘spouse’ should be broadened to include the words “or partner in the permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken reciprocal duties of support” [C1.5], [R1.4].

In August 2002, the Constitutional Court ruled the government’s failure to include same-sex partners in benefits to surviving spouses violates the constitution [R1.3].

In September 2001, the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project was suing state pension funds for the right to claim pensions from deceased same-sex partners [R1.2].

In October 1998, Pension Funds Adjudicator John Murphy ordered a South African pension fund to pay death benefits to a Cape Town homosexual man following the death of his partner [R1.1].

In July 2004, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance banned cross dressers and transvestites from their membership [R1.4].

In September 2003, the South African government passed legislation amending the Birth and Death Registration Act to allow the transgendered to correct their sex as entered in the official register [R1.3].

The bill will now go to the national council of provinces for concurrence.

The [Alteration of Sex Description and Sexual Status] Bill when approved, will allow individuals to change their sex status in the population register [R1.2].

In December 1999, a Bill was introduced to Parliament that would allow anybody who has had a sex change through surgical and medical treatment to apply to the director-general of home affairs to have the birth register changed [R1.1].

On 04 June 2019, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court reportedly temporarily suspended the IAAF ruling that would have required Caster Semenya to take testosterone-reducing medication to be eligible to compete. The South African is set to compete in a 2,000m race in Paris on Tuesday, 11 June, but could instead decide to compete in upcoming Diamond League events in Oslo on 13 June and Rabat on 16 June [R2.5].

On 01 May 2019, the Court of Arbitration for Sport issued a media release dismissing the request for arbitration filed by South African athlete Caster Semenya and Athletics South Africa, seeking to have the ”IAAF Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development)” regulations declared invalid and void with immediate effect. Semenya must now lower her natural testosterone level by 08 May through medication if she wants to compete at the IAAF World Championships later this year [R2.4].

On 06 September 2017, Western Cape High Court Judge Ashley Binns-Ward ruled that individuals have the right to amend their gender description even if they were married as heterosexuals, finding the conduct by the Department of Home Affairs infringed on the applicants’ rights to administrative justice, equality and human dignity and was inconsistent with the department’s constitutional obligations. The court also found the department’s request to two of the applicants to divorce in order to alter the sex description of one of them was unlawful and the director general was ordered to reinstate the marriage within 30 days of the order [C2.3], [R2.2].

On 13 March 2017, Seshego Equality Court in Limpopo reportedly ruled that a high school principal had made hurtful and harmful speech remarks towards a transgender learner in contravention of Section 10 of the Equality Act. The court will make a decision on the relief sought on Friday [R2.1].

On 18 May 2018, Judge Lee Bozalek, in the Equality Court in Cape Town was reported to have sentenced Reverend Oscar Bougardt to 30 days in prison, suspended for five years, for contempt of court after he disregarded a court order barring him from making anti-gay comments [C1.2], [R1.1].

In November 2009, South Africa’s cabinet approved a new policy allowing the national defense force to selectively recruit and deploy soldiers who are HIV-positive [R1.2].

In February 2003, the Law Commission recommended that “Intentional nondisclosure by a person that he or she is infected by a life-threatening sexually transmissible infection … prior to sexual relations with another consenting person would constitute rape” [R1.1].

The Commission also recommended broadening the definition of rape so that men could be considered rape victims if their sex partners do not disclose that they are infected with HIV.

There was no report as to if or when government officials would act on the recommendations.

On 03 June 2016, it was reported that the Advertising Standards Authority dismissed complaints about a We The Brave campaign advert encouraging gay men to practise safe sex. The complaint was made by two women and three men who ”expressed their discontent at the fact that same-sex relationships are being promoted on television without the possibility of shielding their children” [C2.4], [R2.3].

In January 2009, an openly gay man living with HIV was appointed to the Constitutional Court of South Africa [R2.2].

In March 2000, the South African Human Rights Commission ruled gay men have a constitutional right to donate blood [R2.1].

Consensual sex between same-sex couples is lawful [R1.2].

In December 2004, the Dutch Reformed Church apologised officially to the country’s gay community for its homophobic behaviour over many years [R1.1].

On 09 October 1998, the Constitutional Court declared the law banning sexual activities between men unconstitutional [R2.4].

On 08 May 1998, the High Court said the common-law crimes of sodomy and unnatural sexual offences and Section 20A of the Sexual Offences Act (“two men at a party”) violated the nation’s post-apartheid constitution [R2.3]. The ruling covers only Gauteng province in which Johannesburg is located

In November 1997, National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and the Human Rights Commission presented their case against the nation’s sodomy laws before the Rand Supreme Court [R2.2].

In August 1997, the High Court of South Africa’s Capetown province legalised gay sex [R2.1].

On 06 December 2018, the lower house National Assembly was reported to have voted to pass the Civil Union Amendment Bill that will prevent officials from refusing to marry same-sex couples on the basis of their ‘conscience, religion [or] belief’. The upper house National Council of Provinces (upper house) will also vote on the amended bill [R1.6].

On 30 November 2018, the Home Affairs Portfolio Committee was reported to have approved an amendment to the Civil Union Act that would repeal the controversial Section 6 of the Civil Union Act 17 of 2006 that allows state marriage officers to refuse to solemnise same-sex marriages. However, the amendment does not address the inherent discrimination between the Marriage Act 1961 and the Civil Union Act, where a heterosexual couple may choose to marry under either Act but homosexual couples who want to marry can only do so by way of the Civil Union Act [R1.5].

In November 2006, the National Assembly passed the Civil Union Bill 230–41 that provides for the “voluntary union of two persons, which is solemnized and registered by either a marriage or civil union.” It does not specify whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partnerships. It then had to go to the National Council of Provinces [R1.4].

In December 2005, the South African Law Reform Commission was proposing the legalization of same-sex marriage [R1.3]. The commission said that while it preferred marriage rights for same-sex couples, domestic partnerships would accomplish many of the same things. Public comment was then invited.

In August 2003, same-sex couples could eventually be able to marry if the public endorses proposals of the SA Law Reform Commission [R1.2].

On 20 December 1997, the African National Congress passed a wide-ranging resolution on gay and lesbian equality that included a call for legalisation of same-sex marriage [R1.1].

On 10 May 2019, the Gauteng High Court rejected the application of the Alliance Defending the Autonomy of Churches in South Africa (ADACSA) seeking clarification as to whether its 08 March 2019 judgment in Gaum vs General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church [see below], which declared the decision of the church on same-sex relationships to be unlawful and invalid, was made only on procedural grounds or also on constitutional grounds [R2.15].

On 25 March 2019, it was reported that the Dutch Reformed Church has decided not to appeal the High Court ruling that reversed its decision to ban same-sex unions within the church [R2.14].

On 08 March 2019, the full bench of the North Gauteng High Court, lead by Judge Joseph Raulinga, reportedly set aside the Dutch Reformed Church’s decision not to recognise gay marriages. The practical effect of the order is that the Dutch Reformed Church will be able to conduct same-sex marriages once they have obtained a licence from Home Affairs in this regard. The judgment also enables gay or lesbian members who are in a same-sex relationship to become ministers of the church [C2.13], [R2.12].

On 06 September 2017, Western Cape High Court Judge Ashley Binns-Ward ruled that individuals have the right to amend their gender description even if they were married as heterosexuals, finding the conduct by the Department of Home Affairs infringed on the applicants’ rights to administrative justice, equality and human dignity and was inconsistent with the department’s constitutional obligations. The court also found the department’s request to two of the applicants to divorce in order to alter the sex description of one of them was unlawful and the director general was ordered to reinstate the marriage within 30 days of the order [C2.11], [R2.10].

On 04 November 2016, Judge of Appeal X M Petse for the Supreme Court of Appeal ordered that the divorcing parties Galefele Hilda Ndaba and James Ndaba have a mutual right to their respective pension interests as part of settling property matters between them. Same-sex marriage being lawful, this opposite-sex divorce case may have relevance to same-sex partners divorcing in similar circumstances [C2.9], [R2.8].

On 26 March 2015, Judge D H Gush in the Labour Court of South Africa, Durban ruled that “M I A” was discriminated against by the State Information Technology Agency refusing to give him the full customary four months of paid leave, arguing that maternity leave applied only to women who had recently given birth. MIA was married in a civil union in 2010. He entered a surrogacy agreement a year later and applied for leave in anticipation of the birth of the child in 2012 [C2.7], [R2.6].

On 01 December 2005, South Africa’s highest court, the Constitutional Court, ruled in favour of same-sex marriages – which were banned under then current legislation – ordering that parliament amend marriage laws to allow gay weddings within a year [C2.5], [R2.4].

Previously:

In December 2004, the Supreme Court of Appeal, one of South Africa’s highest courts, ruled that the official definition of marriage should be expanded to include gay partnerships [R2.3]. The ruling was subject to confirmation by South Africa’s Constitutional Court – its highest court – if gay marriages are to be permitted officially.

Background

In October 2002, the Pretoria High Court dismissed an application to legalise gay marriages [R2.2].

The application was dismissed primarily as a result of the manner in which the Notice of Motion was drafted.

In July 2003, the Constitutional Court dismissed an application to appeal the decision directly to the Court, saying in its judgment that the couple’s appeal raised important questions relating to South Africa’s common law, which should first be considered and determined by the Supreme Court of Appeal [R2.1].

In November 2009, South Africa’s cabinet approved a new policy allowing the national defense force to selectively recruit and deploy soldiers who are HIV-positive [R1.3].

In January 2002, same-sex partners of members of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) were set to have the same benefits as the spouses of the country’s soldiers, sailors and air force members [R1.2].

Regulations amending the definition of “marital status” and “spouse” to include partners in permanent life partnerships were been published in the Government Gazette.

In May 1996, after the formal adoption of the interim constitution in South Africa that bans discrimination against gay people, the parliament legislated a defence policy that entrenches civilian control and bars discrimination against women and gay soldiers [R1.1].

On 30 November 2017, the gender-neutral Labour Relations Amendment Bill (B29-2017) progressed in the National Council of Provinces. If passed into law the Bill will give same-sex couples – as well as surrogate parents – 10 paid days of parental leave. Adoptive parents will be given two months [R1.1].

On 17 November 2017, High Court Judge Ronel Tolmay refused to confirm the surrogacy motherhood agreement entered into by same-sex couple CJD and HN, because they did not live together and one of the men did not want his sexual orientation to become public, finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be born from the surrogacy agreement [C2.9], [R2.8].

In August 2012, Judge Bill Prinsloo in the Pretoria High Court ordered the Meyerton Children’s Court to consider the adoption of “C” in light of an expert report after a magistrate said he was disinclined to grant the adoption, questioning a married male couple as to their suitability for the adoption, because of their sexuality [R2.7].

On 26 April 2012, Acting Judge Nalini Gangen in the West Cape High Court was reported to have ruled that a separated same-sex couple who had a child conceived via artificial insemination were “both mothers” holding full parental responsibilities and they had to enter into a parental plan [C2.6], [R2.5].

On 10 September 2002, the South African Constitutional Court ruled that people in “permanent same-sex life partnerships” should be allowed to adopt because “such relationships could provide the care and support children needed” [R2.4].

The Court declared that sections of the Child Care Act and Guardianship Act prohibiting adoption by gay couples were unconstitutional because they did not make the interest of children paramount [R2.3].

In May 2002, the Constitutional Court reserved judgment on whether the Pretoria High Court was right to declare certain sections of legislation on adoption “unconstitutional and invalid” [R2.3], [R2.2].

In November 1999, a single gay man has finally been allowed to adopt a child after a four-year battle [R2.1].

In September 2003, Appeal Judge Tom Cloete in the Supreme Court of Appeal at Bloemfontein ordered the Road Accident Fund today to compensate a gay man in damages he suffered as a result of his partner being killed [R1.1].

In August 2003, the Appeal Court was to decide later that month on a unique case that a gay man from Pretoria instituted against the Road Accidents Fund (RAF) for the loss of the financial support from his “spouse” [R1.2].