The Persistence of Property Grabbing in the South African Customary Law of Succession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article critically examines the persistence of property grabbing under South Africa’s customary law of succession, despite landmark legal reforms such as the judgment in Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha; Shibi v Sithole 2005 (1) SA 580 ( CC ) and the Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of Related Matters Act 11 of 2009. Drawing on desktop research and empirical findings, the article explores key risk factors, including gender, the nature of the estate, the type of marriage, and the urban-rural divide, that exacerbate the vulnerability to property grabbing. The analysis reveals that legislative reforms alone are insufficient to secure inheritance rights, and calls for a holistic approach that includes strengthening matrimonial property rights, promoting legal literacy, community education, and enhancing oversight of estate administration. The findings underscore the limitations of current reforms in addressing systemic inequities and offer critical insights into the socio-legal challenges of balancing statutory and customary practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".