Can an unmarried father register a child under his surname?

“I’m the father of a newborn daughter. The mother, to whom I’m not married, disappeared immediately after birth leaving me as sole parent of my daughter. Because I don’t know where the mother is I cannot get the mother’s consent. Without this consent Home Affairs does not want to register my daughter under my surname. I have no idea what to do now. Can you help?”

The good news is you can now register your daughter under your surname! 

Our Constitutional Court in a very recent judgment found that the relevant provisions of the Births and Deaths Registration Act (“the Act”) that did not make provision for a child to receive the surname of their unmarried father without the mother’s involvement, was unconstitutional. 

The Constitutional Court held that the sections of the Act discriminated against both children and their unmarried fathers and that it was not justifiable to distinguish between children born to married parents and children born to unmarried parents in respect of regulating what surname could be given to a child. The court also saw the fact that an unmarried father cannot register the birth of their child with their surname without the mother’s consent or presence as discrimination as compared to the rights that married fathers have to register their children and in turn perpetuated stereotypical gender roles that assumes that the child’s care is inherently the mother’s duty.

This judgment confirms that you as an unmarried father can register your daughter in your name. If Home Affairs continues to refuse to accept such registration it may be prudent to obtain the assistance of an attorney or family law specialist to help you engage with the Department of Home Affairs and enforce your rights as declared by the Constitutional Court.

November 15, 2021
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest