Prior to Bwanya, the often-maligned holding in Volks v Robinson had created a considerable amount of controversy as to the legal status of life partnerships, particularly in the context of the law of succession.

Yet this finding was regarded as incongruent with the Constitutional Court's large body of jurisprudence on same-sex life partnerships in the context of LGBT rights.

In a minority judgment in Laubscher, Justice Johan Froneman argued that the court's jurisprudence on same-sex life partners was simply incompatible with its holding in Volks and that the latter stood to be overturned.

However, the court dismissed Bwanya's challenge to the Maintenance Act, mainly because it found itself to be bound by the precedent of Volks v Robinson, in which the application and facts had been near-identical.

The Constitutional Court heard argument on 16 February 2021, and the Women's Legal Centre Trust and the Commission for Gender Equality were admitted as amici curiae.

Handing down judgment on 31 December 2021,[7] a majority of the Constitutional Court found in Bwanya's favour, upholding both her appeal and her application for confirmation and thereby sustaining her challenge to both pieces of legislation.

An amended order was handed down, in which the court instructed Parliament to remedy the legislation to extend spousal protections to "a person in a permanent life partnership in which the partners have undertaken reciprocal duties of support".

On the merits of Bwanya's application, Madlanga held that the exclusion of permanent heterosexual life partners from the acts' protections amounted to unfair discrimination on the ground of marital status and therefore violated the right to equality guaranteed by section 9 of the Constitution.

The finding that the Maintenance Act discriminated unfairly against unmarried life partners was directly contrary to the Constitutional Court's holding in Volks; thus, in Madlanga's words, "the doctrine of precedent is staring me in the face".

Ngcobo had emphasised for the Volks majority that unmarried partners choose not to marry and therefore choose not to accept the legal consequences flowing from the Maintenance Act, but Madlanga concluded, instead, that many unmarried persons – particularly vulnerable women in a patriarchal society, like homosexual people in a homophobic society – do not "realistically" have the choice to convert their romantic partnership into a legal marriage.

Per Judge of Appeal Azhar Cachalia, in such partnerships, a legally enforceable duty of support may arise by agreement (whether implicit or explicit), rather than (as in marriage) by law.

And such recommendation cannot constitute a breach of the principle of separation of powers... Consequently, we consider it appropriate to refer the matter to Parliament for it to consider passing legislation to address the affairs of the permanent life partnerships which we are now told involve more than 3.2 million South Africans.

Moreover, Mogoeng held – contrary to the majority – that marriage "is a matter of choice, however difficult", meaning that unmarried partners could opt in to the additional protections provide in statute.