The case of Brink v Kitshoff involved a challenge to the constitutionality of section 44(1) of the 1943 Insurance Act. This provision stated that if a man took out a life insurance policy for himself and ceded it to his wife, the policy would be part of his insolvent estate if he were sequestrated, with the wife entitled to R30,000. However, there was no similar protection for men if their wives took out a policy on their lives, leading to a declaration that section 44(1) was invalid due to its discriminatory nature, violating the equality clause. Ultimately, the Insurance Act was fully repealed and replaced by the Long Term Insurance Act of 1998, which includes a provision that treats spouses equally, regardless of gender.
paraphrase and summarise:
One of the ¢rst cases involving the Constitution and insolvency law was Brink v
Kitsho¡ NO.25 In this case, the Constitutional Court declared invalid section 44(1)
of the Insurance Act 27 of 1943. This section used to provide that, where a man
had taken out a life insurance policy upon his life and ceded it to his wife and his
estate was subsequently sequestrated, the insurance policy fell into the insolvent
estate, except that the wife was entitled to the ¢rst amount of R30 000. Because no
equivalent provision existed for the protection of a man whose wife had taken out
an insurance policy over her life and ceded it to him before her estate was sequestrated, and because this discrimination could not be justi¢ed, section 44(1) was
declared invalid in that it infringed the equality clause.26 It may be noted that the
Insurance Act was later repealed, in toto, and the Long Term Insurance Act 52 of
1998, which replaced it, contains a provision (section 63), similar to section 44(1)
of the Insurance Act, which refers to a ‘spouse’ and makes no distinction between
men and women
1 answer
1 answer