47 “[74] Given that marriage is a highly personal and private contract, it would be a blatant intrusion on the dignity of one partner to introduce a new member of that union without obtaining that partners consent. [75] In accordance with the Court’s jurisprudence requiring the determination of living customary law that is consistent with the Constitution, we thus conclude that Xitsonga customary law must be developed, to the extent that it does not yet do so, to include a requirement that the consent of the first wife is necessary for the validity of a subsequent customary marriage. This conclusion is in accordance with the demands of human dignity and equality. These demands are evident from the terms of the Recognition Act… [83] The Recognition Act is thus premised on a customary marriage that is in accordance with the dignity and equality demands of the Constitution. A customary marriage where the first wife has consented to the further marriage conforms to the principles of equality and dignity as contained in the Constitution. Where the first wife does not give consent, the subsequent marriage would be invalid for non-compliance with the Constitution.” [83] Nhlapo contended that in customary law, however, the consent of both the man and the woman is already a requirement for a valid ukuthwala. This view was shared by Inkosi Mahlangu on behalf of the first amicus curiae. [84] A further requirement for a valid customary marriage considered by the amici was the issue of the permissible marriageable age. Nhlapo recorded that amongst the AmaXhosa, marriageable age for a woman is considered to be when she is able to bear children. However given the clear indication by the legislature, it appeared that for an ukuthwala to be considered validly