22/11/2025 Bertus Preller Animus manendi, Clearly foreseen contingency, Contingencies domicile, Divorce, Divorce jurisdiction, Divorce proceedings jurisdiction, Domicile, Domicile Act 3 of 1992, Domicile of choice, Domicile of origin, Foreseeable contingency, Indefinite period, Intention to settle indefinitely, International relocation, Pollak test, Procedure, Reasonably anticipated contingency, Section 1(2) Domicile Act, Section 2(1)(a) Divorce Act 70 of 1979, Special plea in abatement, Vague possibility animus manendi, Chinatex v Erskine, clearly foreseen contingency, contingencies domicile, divorce jurisdiction, Domicile Act 3 of 1992, domicile of choice, domicile of origin, Eilon v Eilon, Family Law, foreseeable contingency, indefinite period, intention to settle indefinitely, International Relocation, IRC v Bullock, marital breakdown, matrimonial jurisdiction, OB v LBDS, onus of proof domicile, Pollak test, Re Fuld, reasonably anticipated contingency, section 1(2) Domicile Act, section 2(1)(a) Divorce Act 70 of 1979, special plea in abatement, trial period, vague possibility, Western Cape High Court When a “Trial Period” Defeats Domicile: Animus Manendi and Foreseeable Contingencies in M.S.S v R.A (2025/0539959) [2025] ZAWCHC 517 (10 November 2025). The Facts: From Cape Town to the Netherlands and Back Again The plaintiff and defendant met in the Western Cape in 2016. Their relationship progressed quickly, with the couple moving… READ MORE