Use text C bellow to answer question 3, remember to add authority as it appears on the text:

Question

TEXT C:
(ii) Where there is an express antenuptial contract
A number of questions arise with regard to antenuptial contracts, which are best dealt with under separate heads.
(a) The essential validity of antenuptial contracts
Kahn submits, and most of the authorities—such as there are—support him, that the essential validity of an antenuptial contract is determined by the law of the husband’s domicile at marriage in the case of movables, and the lex situs of immovable. Yet there seems to be no good reason why the application of the husband’s domicile at marriage should not apply to movables and immovables, as is the case where there is no antenuptial contract. Why should the unitary principle not apply here too? It is thus
submitted that the husband’s lex domicilii at marriage determines the validity of an antenuptial contract affecting either movables or immovable. The validity of a choice of law clause in an antenuptial contract is a further question which arises in this regard. It seems clear that by testing essential validity by the husband’s domiciliary law at marriage, our law has rejected party autonomy in antenuptial contracts. Thus the validity of such clauses will be determined by the law of the matrimonial domicile. The authorities, however, hold that the matrimonial domicile governs only movables, and that immovables are governed by the lex situs. The submissions made immediately above in favour of the unitary principle apply mutatis mutandis. Although the authorities hold that a change of domicile will not affect the rights of the spouses, ie that the immutability principle applies, it is submitted that the better view is that this is a question for the law of the matrimonial domicile. If a change of domicile severely disadvantages a spouse, the overriding check of public policy may provide a remedy.
QUESTION 3
Mocktail is domiciled in South Africa. He married a person (Cocktail) who then was domiciled in Burundi and the marriage took place in that country as well. At the time of the marriage, Mocktail and Cocktail signed a standardised Hortors antenuptial contract (ANC) whereby all forms of sharing were excluded. Being head over heels in love Cocktail was not very bothered about the contents of the document, which she signed. As it turned out, the ANC was formally invalid ab initio because it did not comply with the legal rules of Burundi. Mocktail however registered the contract after 5 months’ delay in South Africa when they set foot ashore in this country to stay permanently. Not too long after their arrival, Mocktail died in an aeroplane crash. His Will stipulated that Cocktail would enjoy a usufruct, but that his children would inherit his massive 5 million rand estate. This came as a shock to Cocktail and she queries the outcome, because the basic Burundian matrimonial law would have given her half of the accumulated estate of her husband (in the absence of a valid ANC). Fully advise Cocktail on the formal validity of the ANC.

Answer 1

According to Kahn and other authorities, the essential validity of an antenuptial contract is determined by the law of the husband’s domicile at marriage in the case of movables, and the lex situs of immovables. In this case, since Mocktail is domiciled in South Africa and the marriage took place in Burundi, the formal validity of the antenuptial contract signed by Mocktail and Cocktail would be determined by the law of Mocktail's domicile at the time of the marriage. As such, the ANC would need to comply with the legal rules of South Africa to be considered formally valid. Since the ANC did not comply with the legal rules of Burundi, it would be considered formally invalid ab initio. Therefore, Cocktail may be entitled to claim her rights under South African law, potentially including a share of the estate, rather than the provisions of the invalid ANC.