[1937] EACA 54

[1937] EACA 54

The Court of Appeal held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Charles Alfred Heyer had abandoned his domicil of origin and acquired a domicil of choice in South Africa at the time of his marriage. The burden of proof rested on the respondent, who failed to discharge it. Military service in South Africa and subsequent business activities did not demonstrate the necessary animus manendi for a change of domicil. Admissions and beliefs regarding marriage in community of property were not sufficient to establish a change of domicil. In the absence of clear evidence, the law dictates that the domicil of origin remains. Consequently, the judgment of the lower court was reversed,...

Citation
[1937] EACA 54
Parties
Appellant: Clara Heyer; Respondent: Ernest Beasley Gill, as Executor of Charles Alfred Heyer, Deceased
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1937
Case Number
C.A. 30/1933.
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Kenya, Judgment Entered for Plaintiff, Appeal Heard and Determined
Outcome
appeal allowed, judgment of lower court reversed
Judges
Horne J, Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Sheridan CJ
Legal Topics
Domicile of Origin, Domicile of Choice, Burden of Proof, Community of Property, Conflict of Laws, Marriage and Property Rights
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Public International Law Domicile of Origin Domicile of Choice Burden of Proof Community of Property Conflict of Laws +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 61 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clara Heyer

Appellant

Ernest Beasley Gill, as Executor of Charles Alfred Heyer, Deceased

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Kenya, Judgment Entered for Plaintiff, Appeal Heard and Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Charles Alfred Heyer had abandoned his domicil of origin and acquired a domicil of choice in South Africa at the time of his marriage.
  2. 2 Whether the marriage between the appellant and the deceased was in community of property under South African law.
  3. 3 Whether the onus of proof regarding abandonment of domicil of origin was discharged by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Charles Alfred Heyer had abandoned his domicil of origin and acquired a domicil of choice in South Africa at the time of his marriage. The burden of proof rested on the respondent, who failed to discharge it. Military service in South Africa and subsequent business activities did not demonstrate the necessary animus manendi for a change of domicil. Admissions and beliefs regarding marriage in community of property were not sufficient to establish a change of domicil. In the absence of clear evidence, the law dictates that the domicil of origin remains. Consequently, the judgment of the lower court was reversed,...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, judgment of lower court reversed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in the Court of Appeal and the Court below.
  • No order for costs on a higher scale; costs regulated by Rule 29 and the second schedule to the Rules.